MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402905885 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.1281

Differential sensitivity of humans and deep networks to the amplitude and phase of shape features

2024· article· en· W4402905885 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Baker, John Wilder, James H. Elder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)AmplitudeDifferential (mechanical device)Phase (matter)PhysicsGeologyOpticsEngineeringElectronic engineeringQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While humans are highly sensitive to global shape information, deep neural networks models (DNNs) trained on ImageNet seem to favor local shape features. In the Fourier descriptor (shape frequency) domain, this manifests as much higher human sensitivity to low shape frequencies. Here we ask how this differential sensitivity depends upon the amplitude vs phase structure of these Fourier shape components. Methods: Human observers (n=68) classified animal silhouettes into nine categories. The shapes were lowpass filtered in the shape frequency domain, over a range of frequency cutoffs, using two filtering methods. In method 1, Fourier components beyond the cutoff were zeroed. In method 2, phases were randomized but amplitudes were preserved. We compared human performance against three representative networks: a convolutional model (ResNet-50) and two transformer models (ViT, SWIN). Results: While switching from filtering method 1 to method 2 resulted in a slight decline in human performance, it led to a significant improvement for the networks. What could explain this improvement? One possibility is that networks were simply confused by the smooth shapes produced by method 1. To assess this possibility, we retested the networks using a third filtering method in which phases were randomized and amplitudes set to normative, uninformative values. While performance improved for these more realistic shape stimuli, for the two transformer models (ViT and SWIN), performance remained below levels seen with method 2, indicating that these networks, unlike humans, are able to make effective use of the amplitude structure of low shape frequency components, even when phases are randomized. Conclusions: While humans use low-frequency shape information more effectively than DNNs, they depend critically on the phase structure of these low-frequency shape components. In contrast, transformer networks exploit the texture-like amplitude structure of these components even when phase is randomized.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207