Contextual interactions between orientation- and contrast-modulated textures in the tilt induction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different types of texture modulation provide different information about surface shape. Here we investigate centre-surround interactions between different types of texture modulation, specifically whether the ‘quilt’ version of an orientation-modulated (OM) stimulus is processed by a different mechanism from the contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli from which it is constructed. The OM quilt stimulus (Landy & Oruc, 2002) is constructed from two CM stimuli with orthogonal carrier-orientations combined 180 deg out-of-phase. Thus, there is a symmetry between a CM stimulus composed of two, orthogonal-in-carrier-orientation, in-phase CM stimuli, with an OM stimulus in which the two CM components are out-of-phase: both types of modulation can be constructed from the same set of micropatterns. Although some evidence suggests that for at threshold modulations the OM quilt stimulus is processed differently from its CM counterpart, this has not been determined for suprathreshold modulations. To examine centre-surround interactions between different types of micropattern-constructed OM and CM gratings, we used the tilt illusion in which the surround/inducer grating of a particular orientation biases the perceived orientation of a central test-grating. We measured both small-angle attraction (3 deg surround orientation) (Akgoz, Gheorghiu & Kingdom, 2022) and large-angle repulsion (30 deg surround orientation) effects in the tilt illusion. We compared the effects between ‘same’ (both either OM or CM) versus ‘different’ (OM centre/ CM surround; CM surround/ OM centre) centre-surround types of texture modulations, and for different centre-surround phase-relationships (in-phase, anti-phase, quadrature, random). Our results indicate that overall, there is only partial selectivity for ‘same’ versus ‘different’ conditions. Selectivity is greatest for the in-phase small-angle attraction condition and least for the CM surround/ OM center condition. To conclude, the partial transfer between CM and OM stimuli for suprathreshold modulations and its phase selectivity suggest that quilt OM and its CM counterpart share some common mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".