MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144884820 · doi:10.1364/josaa.24.001873

Structural sparseness and spatial phase alignment in natural scenes

2007· article· en· W2144884820 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce C. Hansen, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial frequencyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMatching (statistics)Phase (matter)Fourier transformPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionFeature (linguistics)Spatial analysisImage (mathematics)Visual processingOpticsMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fourier phase spectrum plays a central role regarding where in an image contours occur, thereby defining the spatial relationship between those structures in the overall scene. Only a handful of studies have demonstrated psychophysically the relevance of the Fourier phase spectrum with respect to human visual processing, and none have demonstrated the relative amount of local cross-scale spatial phase alignment needed to perceptually extract meaningful structure from an image. We investigated the relative amount of spatial phase alignment needed for humans to perceptually match natural scene image structures at three different spatial frequencies [3, 6, and 12 cycles per degree (cpd)] as a function of the number of structures within the image (i.e., "structural sparseness"). The results showed that (1) the amount of spatial phase alignment needed to match structures depends on structural sparseness, with a bias for matching structures at 6 cpd and (2) the ability to match partially phase-randomized images at a given spatial frequency is independent of structural sparseness at other spatial frequencies. The findings of the current study are discussed in terms of a network of feature integrators in the human visual system.

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)0.006
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207