MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569170748 · doi:10.1167/16.12.1146

Suprathreshold interactions between color and luminance contrast: the effect of cross-oriented luminance contrast on perceived color contrast under dichoptic, monocular and binocular viewing conditions

2016· article· en· W2569170748 on OpenAlexaff
Yeon Jin Kim, Kathy T. Mullen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminanceContrast (vision)MonocularChromatic scaleArtificial intelligenceComputer visionColor visionColor contrastPerceptionPsychologyOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural scenes contain both color and luminance contrast at different spatial scales and orientations that are sometimes spatially overlaid and sometimes not. Hence, the study of the interaction between color and luminance contrast is fundamental to a complete understanding of visual processing. Such interactions have been well established at the level of detection thresholds, revealing that responses to color and luminance behave independently and are attributable to separable neural processes. Here we investigate suprathreshold interactions between overlaid color and luminance contrasts presented orthogonally (cross-oriented) to reveal how luminance contrast affects the contrast normalization of perceived color contrast. Method: We tested the effects of an overlaid luminance contrast pattern on the perception of color contrast using a method of constant stimuli to determine a Point of Subjective Equality (PSE) between color-only and color plus luminance contrast for binocular, monocular and dichoptic viewing conditions across a range of spatial frequencies (0.375-1.5 cpd, at 2Hz). Results: Our results show that overlaid luminance contrast affects the perceived color contrast, and that the effect is markedly different across viewing conditions. For binocular and monocular viewing, the interaction is facilitatory, with overlaid, cross-oriented luminance contrast enhancing the saliency of perceived color contrast by up to 40-50%. For the dichoptic viewing, however, the interaction is inhibitory, with the luminance contrast suppressing color contrast interocularly. Conclusions: We propose that the underlying mechanism mediating the chromatic facilitation exists as an excitatory within-eye route that carries forward to binocular site, and that a suppressive interocular route may also modulate responses via a binocular site. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207