MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196318156 · doi:10.1167/jov.21.9.1830

Cortical magnification analysis of shape adaptation reveals early curvature coding mechanisms

2021· article· en· W3196318156 on OpenAlexaff
Irfa Nisar, James H. Elder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptStimulus (psychology)LuminanceSecond-order stimulusCurvatureReceptive fieldPhysicsMathematicsOpticsNeurosciencePsychologyGeometryVisual perceptionPerceptionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Sustained stimulation of the retina with a circular stimulus produces the impression of a polygon (Khuu et al 2002, Ito 2012). What could explain this surprising phenomenon? A low-level account posits an opponency between localized curvature-tuned neurons in early visual cortex, while a high-level account assumes an opponency between neurons in higher visual areas coding whole shapes. To test these competing accounts, we measure how the illusion varies with the size and eccentricity of the stimulus. While a high-level account predicts invariance to size and position, a low-level account predicts that the order of the perceived polygon will increase with the size and decrease with the eccentricity of the stimulus, due to cortical magnification. Method. We employed the method of Sakurai (2014) to rapidly induce the circle-polygon illusion. The stimulus was a static dark outline circle augmented with a 2 Hz pulsed luminance gradient around the inner border. Both the radius and eccentricity of the stimulus were varied in a crossed design over 1-8 deg. Observers indicated their percept by selecting from a palette of shapes that included a circle and polygons of orders 3-10, and also reported the strength of the polygon percept on a 0-10 scale. Results. As previously reported, the strength of the percept increased with eccentricity. Importantly, the mean order of the perceived polygon systematically increased with stimulus size and decreased with eccentricity. To relate this more clearly to the underlying neural substrate, we computed the circumference of each stimulus in both retinal and cortical coordinates, taking cortical magnification into account. Linear regression analysis reveals that the cortical size of the stimulus is a significantly better predictor of perceived polygon order. Implications. These results suggest that the circle-polygon illusion arises from and reveals the architecture of an early visual opponent mechanism for curvature coding.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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