Texture density adaptation can be bidirectional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texture density has previously been thought of as a scalar attribute on the assumption that texture density adaptation only reduces, not enhances, perceived density (Durgin & Huk, 1997). This "unidirectional" property of density adaptation is in contradistinction to the finding that simultaneous density contrast (SDC) is "bidirectional"; that is, not only do denser surrounds reduce the perceived density of a lower density region, but sparser surrounds enhance it (Sun, Baker, & Kingdom, 2016). Here we reexamine the directionality of density adaptation using random dot patterns and a two-alternative forced choice task in which observers compare the perceived density of adapted test patches with unadapted match stimuli. In the first experiment, we observed a unidirectional density aftereffect when test and match were presented simultaneously as in previous studies. However, when they were presented sequentially, bidirectionality was obtained. This bidirectional aftereffect remained when the presentation order of test and match was reversed (second experiment). In the third experiment, we used sequential presentation to measure the density aftereffect for a wide range of adaptor densities (0-73 dots/deg2) and test densities (1.6, 6.4, and 25.6 dots/deg2). We found bidirectionality for all combinations of adaptor and test densities, consistent with our previous SDC results. This evidence supports the idea that there are multiple channels selective to texture density in human vision.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".