Depth discrimination from occlusions in 3D clutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objects such as trees, shrubs, and tall grass consist of thousands of small surfaces that are distributed over a three-dimensional (3D) volume. To perceive the depth of surfaces within 3D clutter, a visual system can use binocular stereo and motion parallax. However, such parallax cues are less reliable in 3D clutter because surfaces tend to be partly occluded. Occlusions provide depth information, but it is unknown whether visual systems use occlusion cues to aid depth perception in 3D clutter, as previous studies have addressed occlusions for simple scene geometries only. Here, we present a set of depth discrimination experiments that examine depth from occlusion cues in 3D clutter, and how these cues interact with stereo and motion parallax. We identify two probabilistic occlusion cues. The first is based on the fraction of an object that is visible. The second is based on the depth range of the occluders. We show that human observers use both of these occlusion cues. We also define ideal observers that are based on these occlusion cues. Human observer performance is close to ideal using the visibility cue but far from ideal using the range cue. A key reason for the latter is that the range cue depends on depth estimation of the clutter itself which is unreliable. Our results provide new fundamental constraints on the depth information that is available from occlusions in 3D clutter, and how the occlusion cues are combined with binocular stereo and motion parallax cues.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".