Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual objects are effortlessly recognized from their outlines, largely irrespective of viewpoint. Previous studies have drawn different conclusions regarding the importance to shape recognition of specific shape features such as convexities and concavities. However, most studies employed familiar objects, or shapes without curves, and did not measure shape recognition across changes in scale and position. We present a novel set of random shapes with well-defined convexities, concavities and inflections (intermediate points), segmented to isolate each feature type. Observers matched the segmented reference shapes to one of two subsequently presented whole-contour shapes (target or distractor) that were re-scaled and re-positioned. For very short segment lengths, performance was significantly higher for convexities than for concavities or intermediate points and for convexities remained constant with increasing segment length. For concavities and intermediate points, performance improved with increasing segment length, reaching convexity performance only for long segments. No significant differences between concavities and intermediates were found. These results show for the first time that closed curvilinear shapes are encoded using the positions of convexities, rather than concavities or intermediate regions. A shape-template model with no free parameters gave an excellent account of the data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".