MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090032849 · doi:10.1167/6.6.339

On the mechanisms for contour-shape after-effects

2010· article· en· W2090032849 on OpenAlexaff
F. A. A. Kingdom, Elena Gheorghiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureSine waveAmplitudeStimulus (psychology)MathematicsGeometryBounded functionContour lineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)PhysicsMathematical analysisOpticsComputer scienceVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptation to a sinusoidally modulated contour produces a shift in the apparent shape frequency of a subsequently presented test contour, in a direction away from that of the adaptation stimulus. The phenomenon has been termed the ‘shape-frequency after-effect’ or SFAE (Kingdom & Prins, 2005, JOV, 5, 464). We describe an even larger after-effect of contour-shape amplitude, which we term the ‘shape-amplitude after-effect’ or SAAE. What underlies these after-effects? They occur even when the shape-phase of the contour is randomly changed every half second during the adaptation period, which would tend to lead one to reject the idea that local tilt (or orientation) after-effects (TAEs) are the underlying cause. However we show that even with adaptation contour phase-randomization, the geometrical relationships between adaptor and test are such that the TAE is difficult to rule out. We provide evidence against the TAE: sizeable after-effects are obtained for adaptors that are sine-wave-shaped and tests that are square-wave-shaped. In addition we test, and reject, three other candidates besides local orientation: global average curvature, local signed curvature and global spatial frequency. We suggest that contour shape after-effects result from adaptation to the sizes of local, partly-bounded regions defined by the contour's shape. This in turn implies that contour shape is processed by mechanisms that encode the sizes of partly-bounded regions of the stimulus.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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