Task-dependent contribution to edge-based versus region-based texture perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texture segregation studies indicate that some types of textures are processed by edge-based and others by region-based mechanisms. However, studies employing nominally edge-based textures have found evidence for region-based processing mechanisms when the task was to detect rather than segregate the textures. Here we investigate directly whether the nature of the task determines if region-based or edge-based mechanisms are involved in texture perception. Stimuli consisted of randomly positioned Gabor micropattern texture arrays with five types of modulation: orientation modulation, orientation variance modulation, luminance modulation, contrast modulation and contrast variance modulation (CVM). There were four modulation frequencies: 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 cpd. Each modulation type was defined by three types of waveforms: sinewave (SN) with its smooth variations, square-wave (SQ) and cusp-wave (CS) with its sharp texture edges. The CS waveform was constructed by removing a sinewave from an equal amplitude square-wave. Participants performed two tasks: detection in which participants selected which of two stimuli contained the modulation and discrimination in which participants indicated which of two textures had a different modulation orientation. Our results indicate that threshold amplitudes in the detection task followed the ordering SQ < SN < CS across all spatial frequencies, consistent with detection being mediated by the overall energy in the stimulus and hence region based. With the discrimination task at low texture spatial frequencies and with CVM textures at all spatial frequencies the order was CS ≤ SQ with both < SN, consistent with being edge-based. We modeled the data by estimating the spatial frequency of a Difference of Gaussian filter that gave the largest peak amplitude response to the data. We found that the peak amplitude was lower for detection than discrimination across all texture types except for the CVM texture. We conclude that task requirements are critical to whether edges or regions underpin texture processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".