MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134597087 · doi:10.1167/8.16.8

Visual short-term memory of local information in briefly viewed natural scenes: Configural and non-configural factors

2008· article· en· W2134597087 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Velisavljevic, James H. Elder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisual short-term memoryEncoding (memory)Coding (social sciences)Natural (archaeology)Context (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceScene statisticsComputer scienceTerm (time)Representation (politics)Task (project management)Visual perceptionVisual memoryPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyPerceptionCognitionMathematicsGeographyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical visual environments contain a rich array of colors, textures, surfaces, and objects, but it is well established that observers do not have access to all of these visual details, even over short intervals (R. A. Rensink, J. K. O'Regan, & J. J. Clark, 1997). Rather, it seems that human vision extracts only partial information from every glance. What is the nature of this selective encoding of the scene? Although there is considerable research on short-term coding of individual objects, much less is known about the representation of a natural scene in visual short-term memory (VSTM). Here, we examine the VSTM of natural scenes using a local recognition task. A major finding is that local recognition performance is better when image segments are viewed in the context of coherent rather than scrambled scenes, suggesting that observers rely on an encoding of a global 'gist' of the scene. Variations on this experiment allow quantification of the role of multiple factors in local recognition. Color statistics and the global configural context are found to be more important than local features of the target, even for a local recognition task.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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