MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2892496601 · doi:10.1167/18.10.1186

Effect of background texture on target detection: masking or differential processing for near and far pictorial depth?

2018· article· en· W2892496601 on OpenAlexaff
Jiali Song, Hong‐Jin Sun, Patrick Bennett, Allison B. Sekuler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasking (illustration)Differential effectsVisual fieldPeripheralTexture (cosmology)Computer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceOpticsBiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that the 2D spatial extent of selective attention is limited, as described by the useful field of view (UFOV), the 2D spatial extent of the visual field from which information can be extracted without eye or head movements. However, less is known about how selective attention varies in 3D. We (Song et al., VSS 2017) previously investigated the horizontal extent of visual attention while simulating depth through pictorial and optical flow cues in a driving scenario. In our modified UFOV task, participants showed better detectability for brief peripheral targets at a near depth compared to a far depth. Although we ensured that the retinal size of the targets was identical across both depths, the retinal characteristics of the textured, checker backgrounds on which targets appeared differed across conditions. Specifically, backgrounds in the far condition extended over a smaller area and consisted of smaller checkerboards than backgrounds in the near condition. Thus, the depth effect we found previously may have been due to increased masking effects of the background at greater simulated depths, rather than differences in perceived depth per se. The current study examined this hypothesis by measuring the effect of check size and background extent on the detectability of brief peripheral targets presented at a single depth. Results from 13 observers suggest that check size and background extent have very small effects on the detectability of peripheral targets in our conditions. Hence, it is unlikely that the effect of depth reported by Song et al. can be accounted for by differential masking by the target background in the near and far conditions, supporting the idea that attention covers a greater extent for near than for far targets. We are continuing this line of investigation by examining the effect of the ground texture on target detection. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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