Orientation tuning of binocular summation: a comparison of colour to achromatic contrast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key function of the primary visual cortex is to combine the input from the two eyes into a unified binocular percept. At low, near threshold, contrasts a process of summation occurs if the visual inputs from the two eyes are similar. Here we measure the orientation tuning of binocular summation for chromatic and equivalent achromatic contrast. We derive estimates of orientation tuning by measuring binocular summation as a function of the orientation difference between two sinusoidal gratings presented dichoptically to different eyes. We then use a model to estimate the orientation bandwidth of the neural detectors underlying the binocular combination. We find that orientation bandwidths are similar for chromatic and achromatic stimuli at both low (0.375 c/deg) and mid (1.5 c/deg) spatial frequencies, with an overall average of 29 ± 3 degs (HWHH, s.e.m). This effect occurs despite the overall greater binocular summation found for the low spatial frequency chromatic stimuli. These results suggest that similar, oriented processes underlie both chromatic and achromatic binocular contrast combination. The non-oriented detection process found in colour vision at low spatial frequencies under monocular viewing is not evident at the binocular combination stage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".