The Curve Visible on the Campbell-Robson Chart Is Not the Contrast Sensitivity Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Campbell-Robson chart is a highly popular figure used in psychophysics and visual perception textbooks to illustrate the Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF). The chart depicts a grating which varies logarithmically in spatial frequency (SF) from left to right and in contrast from bottom to top. Campbell and Robson's (1964) intuition was that the boundary between the grating and the homogeneous gray area (below threshold) would trace the shape of the observer's own CSF. In this paper, we tested this intuition. A total of 170 participants (96 adults and 74 children) adjusted the four parameters of a truncated log-parabola directly onto a Campbell-Robson chart rendition and completed a gold-standard CSF evaluation. We hoped that this procedure which requires a mere three clicks on the computer mouse, would speed up the measurement of the CSF to under a minute. Unfortunately, the only parameter of the truncated log-parabola fitted to the gold-standard CSF data that could be predicted from the Campbell-Robson chart data was the peak sensitivity for the adult participants. We conclude that the curve visible on the Campbell-Robson chart cannot be used practically to measure the CSF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".