MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078672439 · doi:10.1167/14.2.10

Feature integration within and across visual streams occurs at different visual processing stages

2014· article· en· W2078672439 on OpenAlexafffund
Clint J. Perry, Ahmed Tahiri, Mazyar Fallah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisual processingComputer visionFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceIllusionObject (grammar)DorsumPerceptionOptical illusionProcess (computing)Motion perceptionMotion (physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)CommunicationNeuroscienceBiologyPsychologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direction repulsion is a perceptual illusion in which the directions of two superimposed surfaces are repulsed away from the real directions of motion. The repulsion is reduced when the surfaces differ in dorsal stream features such as speed. We have previously shown that segmenting the surfaces by color, a ventral stream feature, did not affect repulsion but instead reduced the time needed to process both surfaces. The current study investigated whether segmenting two superimposed surfaces by a feature coprocessed with direction in the dorsal stream (i.e., speed) would also reduce processing time. We found that increasing the speed of one or both surfaces reduced direction repulsion. Since color segmentation does not affect direction repulsion, these results suggest that motion processing integrates speed and direction prior to forming an object representation that includes ventral stream features such as color. Like our previous results for differences in color, differences in speed also decreased processing time. Therefore, the reduction in processing time derives from a later processing stage where both ventral and dorsal features bound into the object representations can reduce the time needed for decision making when those features differentiate the superimposed surfaces from each other.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207