Depth perception and segmentation: A common dependence on texture sparseness and local phase structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To perceive the 3D layout of a scene, the visual system must parse the image into different objects (segmentation) and determine their relative distances (depth ordering). Either stereopsis or relative image motion resulting from movement of the observer (motion parallax) could serve as perceptual cues for these tasks, but very little is known about the effects of image statistics in either of these modalities. Here we examine the influence of specific higher-order texture statistics on depth and segmentation, in motion parallax and stereopsis, using naturalistic synthetic micropattern textures. The textures consisted of edgelet micropatterns at different densities, which could be phase-scrambled either locally or globally (Zavitz & Baker, 2013), thus allowing us to manipulate sparseness, global phase structure, and local phase alignments. The textures were displayed in a circular aperture (28 deg diameter). For motion parallax, relative texture motion (shearing) was synchronized to horizontal head movement with low spatial frequency (0.05 cpd) horizontal square wave modulations. Four observers performed a 2AFC depth ordering task, in which they reported which modulation half-cycle of the texture appeared in front of the other. Binocular vision was assessed by a similar depth ordering task of disparity-defined surfaces, with the same display and matched stimulus parameter settings. The observers also carried out a segmentation task in which they discriminated the orientation of a square wave modulated boundary in depth, in motion parallax or stereopsis. Surprisingly, we obtained a strikingly similar pattern of results for depth ordering and segmentation, and both motion parallax and stereopsis: (1) randomizing all structure by globally phase-scrambling the texture improved performance, (2) decreasing sparseness also improved performance and (3) removing local phase alignments had little or no effect. These results provide evidence for a commonality of early texture processing mechanisms for depth and segmentation in both motion parallax and stereopsis. 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".