MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946363106 · doi:10.1167/19.5.16

Spatial summation of broadband contrast

2019· article· en· W2946363106 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Richard, Bruce C. Hansen, Aaron Johnson, Patrick Shafto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummationSpatial frequencyContrast (vision)NarrowbandStimulus (psychology)PsychophysicsAmplitudeMathematicsLuminanceComputer sciencePerceptionArtificial intelligencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunicationsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207