Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of a color motion system distinct from both the luminance and feature tracking motion systems remains controversial. In the current study, we used a mask known to affect luminance-defined motion processing but which should not affect distinct color-defined motion processing: a static, luminance-defined pedestal at high contrast. To neutralize feature tracking, the motion (3.75 Hz) was presented in the near periphery (2 to 3 degrees of eccentricity) at a spatial frequency (~1 cpd) beyond the attentional resolution acuity. The results showed that, in a direction discrimination task, the luminance-defined pedestal affected luminance- and color-defined contrast thresholds by similar proportions (~10x at the highest pedestal contrast) and that this masking was orientation specific as a similar mask orthogonal to the signal modulation had little impact on luminance- and color-defined contrast thresholds. Given that L- and M-cone pathways merge at a processing level that is not orientation specific (i.e., ganglion cells, which have center-surround receptive fields), the masking of a luminance pedestal must interfere with higher processing stages within the luminance pathway where cells are orientation selective (e.g., simple cells). Furthermore, a static luminance-defined mask should not generate any substantial response from cells sensitive to luminance-defined motion (e.g., complex cells), so even if distinct luminance and color motion pathways merged after independent motion extractions, a static, luminance-defined mask should not impair color-defined motion processing. The similar vulnerabilities of luminance- and color-defined motion processing to a static, luminance-defined mask suggest that, when the feature tracking is neutralized, luminance- and color-defined motions are processed by the same motion system. We conclude that there is no dedicated color motion system. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".