Factors in the measurement of interocular inhibition fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halos around lines, patches of coherent dominance, and traveling waves have been observed during binocular rivalry, which all imply some spatial spread in the interocular inhibition field of competing regions of space. The current series of experiments show that the range across which a target bar is rendered invisible during rivalry depends greatly on the luminance pattern defining the bar. Rectangular target bars, which were of uniform luminance, random noise, or filled with gratings oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the orientation of the target bar, were presented to one eye. Presented to the other eye were two rectangular suppressor bars equidistant from the center of the target bar. For horizontal target bars, the range of suppression was approximately 1 deg for target bars of uniform luminance or filled with a grating of parallel orientation, but only 0.5 deg for target bars filled with random noise or a grating of perpendicular orientation. For vertical target bars, the total time of suppression decreased by 20% or more, but the pattern of results with regards to the luminance profile of the target bar was very similar. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a small gap between the suppressor bars and the central portion of the target bar greatly reduced the frequency with which the target bar was rendered invisible. Also, the spread of suppression is likely not due to traveling waves in dominance, as no change in the time until suppression was observed as a function of the separation of the suppressor bars. Consistent with all of the results is that interocular inhibition fields extend 1–2 deg, but that the likelihood of interocular suppression occurring is mitigated by the nature of the luminance pattern perpendicular in orientation to the suppressors. The implications for models of interocular suppression will be explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".