MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2076694756 · doi:10.1167/7.9.622

Critical spatial frequencies in the perception of letters, faces, and novel stimuli

2010· article· en· W2076694756 on OpenAlexaff
İpek Oruç, Jason J.S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PerceptionCritical bandSpatial frequencyCommunicationVisual processingPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceSpeech recognitionPhysicsOpticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical-band masking paradigm is a method that reveals the band of spatial frequencies used by human observers to identify a stimulus. Previous studies of letter recognition have shown that a) the critical band of frequencies is relatively narrow and b) the peak frequency in object frequency units changes with letter size, indicating scale-dependence and suggesting the existence of channels specialized for processing letters of various sizes (Majaj, Pelli, Kurshan, & Palomares, 2002; Oruc & Landy 2006). In this study, we investigated whether similar results are found for other types of visual stimuli. We characterized stimuli along two main dimensions: evolutionary relevance and amount of training. Letters are arbitrary shapes from an evolutionary perspective, but for which most observers are highly trained. Faces are not only well trained but may have long-standing evolutionary relevance in the human visual system. As arbitrary and untrained stimuli we used, first, a set of novel shapes, and second, mirror-image letters. We found, first, that all four types of patterns are recognized using a narrow band of frequencies, despite the fact that these are all broadband stimuli. Second, the critical frequency band shifted with changes in stimulus size in a similar manner for letters, reversed letters, and novel shapes. Faces on the other hand differed, in that there was a greater degree of scale invariance for larger stimuli. These results show that the critical frequencies found for letter processing are not unique to these linguistic symbols; face processing, however, may differ from other stimuli.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicFace Recognition and Perception→French-language works237,207→