MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2750745390 · doi:10.1167/17.10.1183

Nonlinearity of contrast responses in human achromatic and color vision

2017· article· en· W2750745390 on OpenAlexaff
Yushu Wang, Alex S. Baldwin, Robert F. Hess, Kathy T. Mullen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensContrast (vision)Chromatic scalePedestalColor visionOpticsMasking (illustration)PsychophysicsCRFSPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionGeographyConditional random field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transduction mechanisms in the visual system are nonlinear. In pedestal masking the detection of contrast increments is facilitated at low pedestal contrasts and masked at high pedestal contrasts. Hence increment thresholds measured over a range of pedestal contrasts form a "dipper" function whose shape reflects the underlying contrast response function (CRF). Here, we exploit this relationship to measure the CRFs for achromatic and isoluminant red-green (RG) color contrast. Contrast increment thresholds for Gabor patterns (0.375 c/deg, 2 Hz) with either achromatic or isoluminant RG (L/M cone opponent) contrast were measured for three observers in a pedestal masking paradigm. CRFs were fitted to the individual trial responses using maximum-likelihood fitting: response = (contrast^p)/(z+contrast^q). Although cone contrast sensitivity was on average 4.91±0.62 times higher for the isoluminant RG stimuli, the shapes of the dipper functions for the two conditions were similar. The fitted transducer parameters (p and q) were found to be similar across the achromatic and RG chromatic CRFs. Between three subjects, average p values of 2.36±0.47 and 2.38±0.41 were found for achromatic and chromatic CRFs, respectively. The respective q values were 1.91±0.41 and 1.87±0.30. Regardless of individual sensitivity differences, these similarities between achromatic and color perception are consistent within each subject. We find that the shapes of the CRFs for achromatic and RG color contrast are very similar. This is important for studies that normalise the contrast responses to achromatic and color stimuli by scaling them in multiples of detection threshold. Differences in the shapes of the CRFs would make this normalisation method invalid. Future CRF measurements for achromatic stimuli at higher temporal rates (0.375 c/deg, 10 Hz) will be used to compare the supposed "magnocellular" CRF against the "parvocellular" CRFs measured here. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→