Cross-orientation masking in human color vision: Application of a two-stage model to assess dichoptic and monocular sources of suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-orientation masking (XOM) occurs when the detection of a test grating is masked by a superimposed grating at an orthogonal orientation, and is thought to reveal the suppressive effects mediating contrast normalization. Medina and Mullen (2009) reported that XOM was greater for chromatic than achromatic stimuli at equivalent spatial and temporal frequencies. Here we address whether the greater suppression found in binocular color vision originates from a monocular or interocular site, or both. We measure monocular and dichoptic masking functions for red-green color contrast and achromatic contrast at three different spatial frequencies (0.375, 0.75, and 1.5 cpd, 2 Hz). We fit these functions with a modified two-stage masking model (Meese & Baker, 2009) to extract the monocular and interocular weights of suppression. We find that the weight of monocular suppression is significantly higher for color than achromatic contrast, whereas dichoptic suppression is similar for both. These effects are invariant across spatial frequency. We then apply the model to the binocular masking data using the measured values of the monocular and interocular sources of suppression and show that these are sufficient to account for color binocular masking. We conclude that the greater strength of chromatic XOM has a monocular origin that transfers through to the binocular site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".