MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211068394 · doi:10.1002/0471214426.pas0103

Depth Perception

2002· other· en· W4211068394 on OpenAlexaff
Ian P. Howard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptComputer visionArtificial intelligenceBinocular disparityDepth perceptionComputer scienceKinetic depth effectFocus (optics)Object (grammar)PerceptionCurvatureMotion (physics)Binocular visionMathematicsMotion perceptionGeometryOpticsPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter contains a review of information that we use to perceive the three‐dimensional structure of the visual world. To a limited extent for near viewing we can use nonvisual signals from the accommodative state of the lens or the state of convergence of the eyes. Visual information available to one eye included image blur arising from out‐of‐focus images; overlap between images of objects at different distances serves as a cue to relative depth. Shading and shadows provide a rich source of information about relative depth, although the sign of depth relations can be ambiguous. When we move past a stationary scene, the relative motion of images of objects at different distances indicates very small differences in depth. Image expansion of an approaching object indicates time to impact and the symmetry of image motion indicates whether the approaching object will hit us. Binocular information available when only both eyes are open includes differences between the images in the two eyes. These binocular disparities provide information about the distances of objects, and the inclination and curvature of surfaces. The chapter ends with a discussion of how different depth cues interact to produce a unified percept of the three‐dimensional structure of the world.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.2530.025

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations52
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207