MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2591439546 · doi:10.1038/srep43274

Dynamics of contextual modulation of perceived shape in human vision

2017· article· en· W2591439546 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena Gheorghiu, Frederick A. A. Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)Modulation (music)PerceptionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionContext (archaeology)Motion (physics)Computer scienceAdaptation (eye)Dynamics (music)Illusory contoursPattern recognition (psychology)CommunicationOptical illusionPsychologyPhysicsOpticsNeuroscienceImage (mathematics)AcousticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biological vision, contextual modulation refers to the influence of a surround pattern on either the perception of, or the neural responses to, a target pattern. One studied form of contextual modulation deals with the effect of a surround texture on the perceived shape of a contour, in the context of the phenomenon known as the shape aftereffect. In the shape aftereffect, prolonged viewing, or adaptation to a particular contour's shape causes a shift in the perceived shape of a subsequently viewed contour. Shape aftereffects are suppressed when the adaptor contour is surrounded by a texture of similarly-shaped contours, a surprising result given that the surround contours are all potential adaptors. Here we determine the motion and temporal properties of this form of contextual modulation. We varied the relative motion directions, speeds and temporal phases between the central adaptor contour and the surround texture and measured for each manipulation the degree to which the shape aftereffect was suppressed. Results indicate that contextual modulation of shape processing is selective to motion direction, temporal frequency and temporal phase. These selectivities are consistent with one aim of vision being to segregate contours that define objects from those that form textured surfaces.

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)0.003
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→