Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has extensively explored visual encoding of smoothly curved, closed contours described by sinusoidal variation of pattern radius as a function of polar angle (RF patterns). Although the contours of many biologically significant objects are curved, we also confront shapes with a more jagged and angular appearance. To study these, we introduce here a novel class of visual stimuli that deform smoothly from a circle to an equilateral polygon with N sides (AF patterns). Threshold measurements reveal that both AF and RF patterns can be discriminated from circles at the same deformation amplitude, approximately 18.0arcsec, which is in the hyperacuity range. Thresholds were slightly higher for patterns with 3.0 cycles than for those with 5.0 cycles. Discrimination between AF and RF patterns was 75% correct at an amplitude that was approximately 3.0 times the threshold amplitude, which implies that AF and RF patterns activate different neural populations. Experiments with jittered patterns in which the contour was broken into several pieces and shifted inward or outward had much less effect on AF patterns than on RF patterns. Similarly, thresholds for single angles of AF patterns showed no significant difference from thresholds for the entire AF pattern. Taken together, these results imply that the visual system incorporates angles explicitly in the representation of closed object contours, but it suggests that angular contours are represented more locally than are curved contours.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".