How independent are global form and global motion processings ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is considered that resolving global form involves processes taking place in the ventral visual pathway whereas resolving global motion involves processes taking place in the dorsal visual pathway. It remains unclear whether the two pathways interact or are independent of one another. We determined whether our ability to discriminate motion direction on a global motion coherence task was affected by the amount of global orientation coherence, and vice versa. The experiment was designed such as the same visual stimuli contained both orientation and motion information. It consisted in a set of 100 oriented gabors randomly placed within the 8 degrees of eccentricity that independently moved at 2 deg/s. Signal Gabors had either horizontal or vertical orientation and left/right motion direction, whereas noise Gabors had random orientation and random direction of motion. Subjects were informed of which information to respond to (orientation or motion) by a visual cue that was shown either before or after the presentation of the stimulus. The results based on 3 subjects showed that orientation information did affect performance on global motion and motion information did affect performance on global orientation, arguing in favor of two independent processes. Presenting the task cue before or after the visual stimulus did not change the performances. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".