MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162917956 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/83dzu

Indolent Retinal Peripheries Attenuate Motion Aftereffect

2019· preprint· en· W3162917956 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Yousef

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinalStimulus (psychology)NeuroscienceRetinaContrast (vision)High contrastPsychologyVisual systemPhotic StimulationNeurophysiologyAudiologyVisual perceptionMedicineOphthalmologyOpticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPhysicsPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously found that the retinal peripheries may not signal the human visual awareness when ‘spatial wrapping’ stimulus has very low contrast, or when the human subjects perform deep inhalation, see reference 19 and 20. In this study, we found that those techniques are able to significantly reduce the motion aftereffect (MAE) too. Namely, when we reduce the contrast of the MAE stimulator, the MAE is significantly reduced. Similarly, when we ask the subjects to perform deep inhalation in the end of viewing a ‘high contrast’ MAE stimulator, the MAE is drastically attenuated. The neurophysiological processes of the previous techniques are vastly different, as explained in our previous work. Namely, significant contrast reduction deactivates the retinal peripheries due to the following reasons; first, extremely low contrast stimulus constricts the pupil that disallows the retinal peripheries from receiving enough light rays to signal the brain actively, second, for extremely low contrast conditions, the center-surround antagonism process in the retinal peripheries might not signal the brain at all. Deep inhalation, however, may cause idle links between the retinal peripheries and their corresponding neurological pathways that eventually signal the visual awareness, a process that is also found to weaken the MAE.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→