Simultaneous density contrast and binocular integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on texture density has utilized textures rendered as two-dimensional (2D) planar surfaces, consistent with the conventional definition of density as the number of texture elements per unit area. How the brain represents texture density information in the three-dimensional (3D) world is not yet clear. Here we tested whether binocular information affects density processing using simultaneous density contrast (SDC), in which the perceived density of a texture region is changed by a surround of different density. We considered the effect on SDC of two types of binocular information: the stereoscopic depth relationships and the interocular relationships between the center and surround textures. Observers compared the perceived density of two random dot patterns, one with a surround (test stimulus) and one without (match), using a 2AFC staircase procedure. In Experiment 1 we manipulated the stereo-depth of the surround plane systematically from near to far, relative to the center plane. SDC was reduced when the difference in stereo-depth between test center and surround increased. In Experiment 2 we spread the surround dots randomly across a stereo-depth volume from small to large volume sizes, and found that SDC was slightly reduced with volume size. The decrease of SDC in both experiments was observed with dense surrounds only, but not with sparse surrounds. In the last experiment we presented center and surround in the same depth plane but dichopticly, monopticly, and binocularly. A strong interocular transfer of SDC was found in the dichoptic condition. Together these results show that texture density processing is sensitive to binocularity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".