MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118563997 · doi:10.1167/11.10.14

Higher order texture statistics impair contrast boundary segmentation

2011· article· en· W2118563997 on OpenAlexafffund
E. Arsenault, Ali Yoonessi, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContrast (vision)SegmentationTexture (cosmology)Higher-order statisticsMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Boundary (topology)ScramblingArtificial intelligenceStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisImage (mathematics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Texture boundary segmentation is conventionally thought to be mediated by global differences in Fourier energy, i.e., low-order texture statistics. Here, we have examined the importance of higher order statistical structure of textures in a simple second-order segmentation task. We measured modulation depth thresholds for contrast boundaries imposed on texture samples extracted from natural scene photographs, using forced-choice judgments of boundary orientation (left vs. right oblique). We compared segmentation thresholds for contrast boundaries whose constituent textures were either intact or phase scrambled. In the intact condition, all the texture statistics were preserved, while in the phase-scrambled condition the higher order statistics of the same texture were randomized, but the lower order statistics were unchanged. We found that (1) contrast boundary segmentation is impaired by the presence of higher order statistics; (2) every texture shows impairment but some substantially more than others; and (3) our findings are not related to scrambling-induced changes in detectability. The magnitude of phase-scrambling effect for individual textures was uncorrelated with variations in their amplitude spectra, but instead we suggest that it might be related to differences in local edge structure or sparseness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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