No second-order motion system sensitive to high temporal frequencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of a second-order motion pathway, distinct from both the first-order luminance pathway and the high-level feature tracking motion system, remains controversial. Two key arguments support its existence: second-order motion is perceived at temporal frequencies too high to be tracked and sensitivity is independent of the relative phase between superimposed luminance- and contrast-modulated gratings. The later argument is typically used to reject the hypothesis that the contrast-modulation contribution to motion is due to early nonlinearities introducing luminance artifacts. But this argument is only valid if the nonlinearities are homogenous across luminance motion detectors; it does exclude the possibility that compressive nonlinearities precede some luminance motion detectors and expansive nonlinearities precede others. In the current study, to neutralize the impact of such opposing nonlinearities, we superimpose a luminance-modulated grating with a high contrast contrast-modulated grating so that some luminance artifacts would sum with the luminance-modulated grating and others would subtract resulting in no net gain. The gratings were drifting in the same direction at a temporal frequency too high to be tracked (15Hz) and their relative phase was systematically varied. Observers were asked to null the net perceived motion by adjusting the contrast of another luminance-modulated grating drifting in the opposite direction. The contrast-modulation contribution to motion was estimated as the contrast difference between the two opposing luminance gratings when no net motion was perceived. Results showed no effect of phase and the contrast-modulation significantly contributed to motion when the contrast of the superimposed grating was low, but not when it was high (i.e. no net motion was perceived when both luminance gratings had the same contrast). We conclude that our sensitivity to contrast-modulated motion at temporal frequencies too high to be tracked is due to early opposing nonlinearities differing across luminance motion detectors, not to a second-order motion pathway. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".