Integration of Contours Defined by Second-Order Contrast-Modulation of Texture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A BSTRACT Boundaries in the visual world can be defined by changes in luminance and texture in the input image. A “contour integration” process joins together local changes into percepts of lines or edges. A previous study tested the integration of contours defined by second-order contrast-modulation. Their contours were placed in a background of random wavelets. Subjects performed near chance. We re-visited second-order contour integration with a different task. Subjects distinguished contours with “good continuation” from distractors. We measured thresholds in different amounts of external orientation or position noise. This gave two noise-masking functions. We also measured thresholds for contours with a baseline curvature to assess performance with more curvy targets. Our subjects were able to discriminate the good continuation of second-order contours. Thresholds were higher than for first-order contours. In our modelling, we found this was due to multiple factors. There was a doubling of equivalent internal noise between first- and second-order contour integration. There was also a reduction in efficiency. The efficiency difference was only significant in our orientation noise condition. For both first- and second-order stimuli, subjects were also able to perform our task with more curved contours. We conclude that humans can integrate second-order contours, even when they are curved. There is however reduced performance compared to first-order contours. We find both an impaired input to the integrating mechanism, and reduced efficiency seem responsible. Second-order contour integration may be more affected by the noise background used in the previous study. Difficulty segregating that background may explain their result.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".