Visual perception of texture regularity: Conjoint measurements and a wavelet response-distribution model
Bibliographic record
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) for the first time 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 the peakedness of the spatial frequency (SF) distribution, 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 read-out for perceived 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".