Factors affecting the discrimination and perceived attitude of multiple transparent surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the natural world, each region of an image typically projects from a unique surface in the scene. This rule is broken when surfaces are transparent, as for water or glass. Surfaces with many gaps or holes, either at a fine scale (sheer cloth) or at a course scale (a wire fence), approximate transparency in that patches of multiple surfaces may be interleaved in the image in a complex way. While the necessary conditions for perceived transparency are well studied, little is known about how the visual system extracts the 3D geometry of these surfaces. In this study, we examine visual perception of 3-D attitude from texture for multiple, overlaid transparent surfaces. METHODS: In each trial, observers monocularly viewed transparent planar surfaces rendered in perspective within a circular window of diameter 45 degrees. Two surfaces were painted with different textures and rendered at identical slants but systematically different tilts. Subjects were asked to: i) indicate whether 1 or 2 different planar surfaces were perceived, and ii) use a mouse-controlled visual gauge figure to indicate the attitude of the perceived surface(s). RESULTS: Data were partitioned into two groups based on whether 1 or 2 surfaces were perceived. The latter group was used to estimate statistical distributions of estimated tilt error for each textured surface in the presence of each of the other textured surfaces. Based on these data, a statistical model was constructed to predict, as a function of the surface textures and the tilt difference between the 2 surfaces, i) the incidence with which 1 vs 2 surfaces are perceived, and ii) the mean and variance of the tilt estimates for those cases in which a single fused surface is perceived. CONCLUSION: The fusion and discrimination of multiple transparent surfaces can be understood within the framework of statistical decision theory, based on estimated uncertainties in the attitude judgement of the individual surfaces.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".