MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236231530 · doi:10.1167/11.11.747

Direction discrimination thresholds in binocular, monocular, and dichoptic viewing: Motion opponency and contrast gain control

2011· article· en· W4236231530 on OpenAlexaff
Goro Maehara, R. F. Hess, Mark A. Georgeson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocularPedestalContrast (vision)LuminanceOpticsBinocular visionFlickerEmmetropiaBinocular disparityPhysicsComputer scienceVisual acuityGeographyRefractive error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The present study investigated the binocular organization of motion opponency and its relation to contrast gain control. Method: We measured luminance contrast thresholds for discriminating direction of motion for drifting Gabor patterns (target) presented on counter-phase flickering Gabor patterns (pedestal; equivalent to the superposition of two Gabors drifting in opposite directions). There were four presentation conditions. (i) Binocular: all stimuli were presented to both eyes, (ii) Monocular: all stimuli were presented to the same one eye, (iii) Dichoptic: the target was presented to one eye while the pedestal was presented to the other eye, (iv) Half-binocular: the target was presented to one eye while pedestals were presented to both eyes. In addition, we tested an increment-and-decrement condition, in which the target increased contrast for one direction of movement, but decreased it by the same amount for the opposite moving component of the pedestal. The decrement was either in the same eye as the increment, or in the other eye. Results and Discussion: Threshold-versus-pedestal-contrast (TvC) functions showed a dipper shape: thresholds decreased and then increased with pedestal contrast. At low pedestal contrasts, there was binocular summation: binocular thresholds were lower than monocular. But at high pedestal contrasts there was little difference between them. The ‘dip’ was smaller for dichoptic presentation than for other presentations. Thresholds were similar for monocular and half-binocular presentations at low pedestal contrasts, but half-binocular thresholds became higher and closer to dichoptic thresholds as pedestal contrast increased. The added decremental target lowered thresholds by about a factor of 2, compared with half-binocular, when the decrement was in the same eye as the increment, or the opposite eye. Several models fit to the data strongly suggest that motion opponency and contrast gain control operate at a binocular level of processing.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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