MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131198176 · doi:10.1167/6.1.6

The extended horopter: Quantifying retinal correspondence across changes of 3D eye position

2006· article· en· W2131198176 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Schreiber, Douglas Tweed, Clifton M. Schor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGazeBinocular visionPsychologyGeologyGeometryComputer visionMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theoretical horopter is an interesting qualitative tool for conceptualizing binocular correspondence, but its quantitative applications have been limited because they have ignored ocular kinematics and vertical binocular sensory fusion. Here we extend the mathematical definition of the horopter to a full surface over visual space, and we use this extended horopter to quantify binocular alignment and visualize its dependence on eye position. We reproduce the deformation of the theoretical horopter into a spiral shape in tertiary gaze as first described by Helmholtz (1867). We also describe a new effect of ocular torsion, where the Vieth-Müller circle rotates out of the visual plane for symmetric vergence conditions in elevated or depressed gaze. We demonstrate how these deformations are reduced or abolished when the eyes follow the modification of Listing's law during convergence called L2, which enlarges the extended horopter and keeps its location and shape constant across gaze directions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations49
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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