Direct Evidence for the Existence of Energy-Based Texture Mechanisms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two classes of models have been proposed to explain how the visual system processes texture modulations. In 'feature models', abstract representations of the featural properties of local texture regions (eg orientation, spatial frequency, contrast) are first generated, after which differences in individual feature properties across space are detected. In 'energy models', on the other hand, differences across space in the response energies of linear simple-cell-like filters are detected. This model thus processes the existing differences between texture regions directly without generating a full representation of the individual texture regions. We provide here direct evidence for the existence of the second, energy model, using an adaptation paradigm in conjunction with textures simultaneously modulated in two dimensions--orientation and spatial frequency. We found that the mechanism that processed the conjoint modulation was tuned to orientations and spatial frequencies that could not be predicted by any feature model, but which were precisely predicted by the energy model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it