Sensitivity to naturalistic texture relies primarily on high spatial frequencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural images contain information at multiple spatial scales. Though we understand how early visual mechanisms split multiscale images into distinct spatial frequency channels, we do not know how the outputs of these channels are processed further by mid-level visual mechanisms. We have recently developed a texture discrimination task that uses synthetic, multi-scale, "naturalistic" textures to isolate these mid-level mechanisms. Here, we use three experimental manipulations (image blur, image rescaling, and eccentric viewing) to show that perceptual sensitivity to naturalistic structure is strongly dependent on features at high object spatial frequencies (measured in cycles/image). As a result, sensitivity depends on a texture acuity limit, a property of the visual system that sets the highest retinal spatial frequency (measured in cycles/degree) at which observers can detect naturalistic features. Analysis of the texture images using a model observer analysis shows that naturalistic image features at high object spatial frequencies carry more task-relevant information than those at low object spatial frequencies. That is, the dependence of sensitivity on high object spatial frequencies is a property of the texture images, rather than a property of the visual system. Accordingly, we find human observers' ability to extract naturalistic information (their efficiency) is similar for all object spatial frequencies. We conclude that the mid-level mechanisms that underlie perceptual sensitivity effectively extract information from all image features below the texture acuity limit, regardless of their retinal and object spatial frequency.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".