MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393338828 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.27.583720

Identification of letters distorted by physiologically-inspired spatial scrambling

2024· preprint· en· W4393338828 on OpenAlexaff
X. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScramblingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCommunicationPsychologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract In the geniculostriate pathway of the human visual system, neuronal projections carry signals from a particular retinal locus in parallel from one anatomical area to the next. Imprecision in the fidelity of these projections would place constraints on the ability of the system to perform tasks requiring positional information. We investigated the impact that “spatial scrambling” between stages would have on visual performance. We consider two stages in a simple canonical model of the early visual cortex where scrambling might occur: either the input to the first orientation-tuned mechanisms (analogous to V1 simple cells), or the output from those mechanisms. These are referred as “subcortical” (SCS) and “cortical scrambling” (CS). We developed a wavelet decomposition and resynthesis algorithm to mimic these effects, and measured human performance in letter identification affected by the two types of scrambling. Our results showed SCS and CS have distinguishable effects on both perceived noisiness of letters and letter identification threshold. Comparing human performance against a suite of pre-trained and custom convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that were trained on the scrambled stimuli, relative efficiency (calculated from the ratio of human:CNN thresholds) is higher for CS than SCS. However, in modelling human inefficiency by reducing the proportion of wavelets available to the CNNs, humans are less efficient in CS than SCS. These differences in efficiencies show humans are better at processing orientation redundant stimuli (CS) than orientation noisy stimuli (SCS). We hypothesize this reflects differences in integration properties at the input and output stages of simple cells in the cortex. Author Summary The brain makes sense of the input from our eyes through a system where features are extracted and combined in successive stages. Our study concerns the spatial fidelity of the connections between visual areas. Previous behavioural and physiological evidence has suggested a scrambling of neuronal projections is present in biological visual systems. In our study, we investigate the ability of the human visual system to perform letter identification with stimuli affected by different types of on-screen distortions. These distortions simulate internal scrambling occurring at two early stages in the visual hierarchy. We used convolutional neural network (CNN) models as a benchmark, against which we compared human performance to find human efficiency in handling the distortions. We found that the type of scrambling in which humans were determined to have greater “efficiency” (relative to the CNNs) depended on the analysis used. The threshold magnitude of scrambling at which the letters could no longer be identified was greater for letters scrambled after the oriented features were extracted. Conversely, when efficiency was calculated by starving the CNNs of samples until their performance declined to the human level we instead found that the effective “number of samples” used by our humans was much higher for stimuli simulating scrambling before the oriented feature stage. These differences reflect how information is pooled and combined for these two stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207