MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133085333 · doi:10.1101/2021.02.17.431605

Visual perception of texture regularity: conjoint measurements and a wavelet response-distribution model

2021· preprint· en· W3133085333 on OpenAlexafffund
Hua-Chun Sun, David St-Amand, Curtis L. Baker, Frederick A. A. Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsJitterPerceptionTexture (cosmology)WaveletMathematicsArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)Pattern recognition (psychology)Visual perceptionComputer visionCommunicationComputer sciencePsychologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Texture regularity, such as the repeating pattern in a carpet, brickwork or tree bark, is a ubiquitous feature of the visual world. The perception of regularity has generally been studied using multi-element textures in which the degree of regularity has been manipulated by adding random jitter to the elements’ positions. Here we used three-factor Maximum Likelihood Conjoint Measurement (MLCM) to investigate the encoding of regularity information under more complex conditions in which element spacing and size, in addition to positional jitter, were manipulated. Human observers were presented with large numbers of pairs of multi-element stimuli with varying levels of the three factors, and indicated on each trial which stimulus appeared more regular. All three factors contributed to regularity perception. Jitter, as expected, strongly affected regularity perception. This effect of jitter on regularity perception is strongest at small element spacing and large texture element size, suggesting that the visual system utilizes the edge-to-edge distance between elements as the basis for regularity judgments. We then examined how the responses of a bank of Gabor wavelet spatial filters might account for our results. Our analysis indicates that SF-peakedness, a previously favored proposal, is insufficient for regularity encoding since it varied more with element spacing and size than with jitter. Instead, our results support the idea that the visual system may extract texture regularity information from the moments of the SF-distribution across orientation. In our best-performing model, the variance of SF-distribution skew across orientations can explain 70% of the variance of estimated texture regularity from our data, suggesting that it could provide a candidate readout for perceived regularity. Author Summary We investigated human perception of texture regularity, in which subjects made comparative judgements of regularity in pairs of texture stimuli with differing levels of three parameters of texture construction - spacing and size of texture elements, and their positional jitter. We analyzed the data using a novel approach involving three-factor Maximum Likelihood Conjoint Measurement (MLCM). We utilized a novel analysis-of-variance approach in MLCM to evaluate the effect size and significance of the three factors as well as their interactions. We found that all three factors contributed to perceived regularity, with significant main effects and interactions between factors, in a manner suggesting edge-to-edge distances between elements might contribute importantly to regularity judgments. Using a bank of Gabor wavelet spatial filters to model the response of the human visual system to our textures, we compared four types of ways that the distribution of wavelet responses could account for our measured data on perceived regularity. Our results suggest that the orientation as well as spatial frequency information from the wavelet filters also contributes importantly - in particular, the skew of the variance of the SF-distribution across orientation provides a candidate basis for perceived texture regularity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207