Spatial summation of broadband contrast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial summation of luminance contrast signals has historically been psychophysically measured with stimuli isolated in spatial frequency (i.e., narrowband). Here, we revisit the study of spatial summation with noise patterns that contain the naturalistic 1/fα distribution of contrast across spatial frequency. We measured amplitude spectrum slope (α) discrimination thresholds and verified if sensitivity to α improved according to stimulus size. Discrimination thresholds did decrease with an increase in stimulus size. These data were modeled with a summation model originally designed for narrowband stimuli (i.e., single detecting channel; Baker & Meese, 2011; Meese & Baker, 2011) that we modified to include summation across multiple-differently tuned-spatial frequency channels. To fit our data, contrast gain control weights had to be inversely related to spatial frequency (1/f); thus low spatial frequencies received significantly more divisive inhibition than higher spatial frequencies, which is a similar finding to previous models of broadband contrast perception (Haun & Essock, 2010; Haun & Peli, 2013). We found summation across spatial frequency channels to occur prior to summation across space, channel summation was near linear and summation across space was nonlinear. Our analysis demonstrates that classical psychophysical models can be adapted to computationally define visual mechanisms under broadband visual input, with the adapted models offering novel insight on the integration of signals across channels and space.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".