Different symmetries, different mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three common symmetries exist in the natural visual world: (i) mirror symmetry, i.e., reflections around a vertical axis, (ii) radial symmetry, i.e., rotations around a point, and (iii) translational symmetry, i.e., shifted repetitions. Are these processed by a common class of visual mechanism? Using stimuli comprising arrays of Gaussian blobs we examined this question using a visual search protocol in which observers located a single symmetric target patch among varying numbers of random-blob distractor patches. The testing protocol used a blocked present/absent task and both search times and accuracy were recorded. Search times for mirror and radial symmetry increased significantly with the number of distractors, as did translational-symmetry patterns containing few repetitions. However translational-symmetry patterns with four repeating sectors produced search slopes close to zero. Fourier analysis revealed that, as with images of natural scenes, the structural information in both mirror- and radial-symmetric patterns is carried by the phase spectrum. However, for translational patterns with four repeating sectors, the amplitude spectrum appears to capture the structure, consistent with previous analyses of texture regularity. Modeling revealed that while the mirror and radial patterns produced an approximately Gaussian-shaped energy response profile as a function of spatial frequency, the translational pattern profiles contained a distinctive spike, the magnitude of which increased with the number of repeating sectors. We propose distinct mechanisms for the detection of different symmetry types: a mechanism that encodes local positional information to detect mirror- and radial-symmetric patterns and a mechanism that computes energy in narrowband filters for the detection of translational symmetry containing many sectors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".