Increment and decrement threshold vs. intensity curves for achromatic and L-cone tests.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The desensitization of the visual system as a function of the increasing luminance of a background field yields threshold vs. intensity (tvi) curves, classically measured using increment tests. Here we use a new, high-brightness display system to measure both increment and decrement thresholds. Our display system is based upon a PROPixx three-chip DLP LED color projector (VPixx Technologies, Saint-Bruno, Canada), with light from the projector collected into a field lens and focused onto a high gain rear projection screen. This display combines the brightness of traditional optical systems with the flexibility of control provided by modern displays; in particular, it is simple to use the silent substitution method to isolate single cone types. Here we report tvi curves for achromatic and (L-)ong wavelength sensitive cone isolating tests, measured using method of adjustment. Selected thresholds were verified with a spatial, two-alternative forced-choice procedure. The adapting background was white, with luminances ranging from 0.6 to 4.0 log Trolands (a maximum near 3200 cd/m2, bleaching about 1/3 of the L and M cone pigment). Our observers are slightly more sensitive to decrements than increments (about 0.1 log units), for both achromatic and L-cone tests, and to L-cone tests than to achromatic tests (about 0.6 log cone contrast units), over the entire adapting range. Both increment and decrement thresholds follow the Stiles template, approximating Weber’s law except at the lowest adapting levels. The achromatic tvi’s, for both increment and decrement tests, are, on average, slightly steeper than the L-cone tvi’s. In addition, decrement tvi’s are steeper than the increment tvi’s, indicating greater effects of light adaptation for the decrements, which may be due to differences in the effects of light adaptation in ON and OFF pathways.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".