MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402905719 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.1280

Decoding Contextual Effects in Vision: A Cross-Species Behavioral Approach

2024· article· en· W4402905719 on OpenAlexaff
Anaa Zafer, Sara Djambazovska, Hamidreza Ramezanpour, Gabriel Kreiman, Kohitij Kar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceCommunicationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The significance of context in visual perception is undeniable. Our understanding of the natural world is shaped not just by the foveated visual objects but also by the surrounding scene and prior experiences. While the influence of context on vision has been demonstrated psychophysically, the underlying mechanisms integrating objects and surrounding information during scene comprehension are not fully understood. Studies have extensively examined "low-level" contextual effects, such as extra-classical receptive fields and surround suppression, yet gaps remain in comprehending how context affects "higher-level" visual recognition tasks. To elucidate these neural processes, a detailed examination of the neural networks involved is essential. Rhesus macaques, with their visual processing circuits akin to humans, present an ideal model for this purpose. In our study, we assessed the behavior of 90 human participants via Amazon Mechanical Turk in a binary match to sample object discrimination task, using images with varied contexts (full, incongruent, no context, etc.). The results revealed a significant alteration in human performance due to contextual changes, exhibiting a consistent behavioral pattern across context categories (trial-split reliability of ~0.8). This finding was crucial for comparison with macaques. After training monkeys (n=2) to achieve ≥80% accuracy in object categorization with full-context images, we exposed them to the same contextually manipulated images. The behavioral variance shared between humans and monkeys was significant (~31%), and not attributable to low-level image factors such as object size or contrast. Interestingly, naive macaque inferior temporal (IT) neural responses did not fully account for the observed human-monkey shared variance (13% of image-level explained shared variance), suggesting that the effects are likely driven more by learning processes and feedback mechanisms than by innate IT response statistics. This research paves the way for future investigations into the neural mechanisms of contextual modulation in primate vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→