MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408458642 · doi:10.3390/vision9010023

Simultaneous Regularity Contrast and Luminance Polarity

2025· article· en· W4408458642 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVision · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)LuminancePolarity (international relations)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Texture regularity, for example, the repeating pattern of a carpet, brickwork, or tree bark, is a ubiquitous feature of the visual world. The perception of regularity has generally been studied using multi-element textures whose regularity is manipulated by the addition of random jitter to the elements' nominal positions. Here, we investigate the selectivity of regularity perception for the luminance contrast polarities of the elements. Our psychophysical tool was simultaneous regularity contrast, or SRC, the phenomenon in which the perceived regularity of a central test texture is shifted away from that of the surrounding regularity. Stimuli were composed of arrays of dark and/or white Gaussian elements. Surround and center test textures consisted of either the same ("congruent") or opposite ("incongruent") polarities. In addition, we tested a "mixed" condition consisting of a random mixture of polarities in both the surround and test. The perceived regularity of the test was measured using a match stimulus with the same polarity dimension as the test. The regularity of the match stimulus was adjusted on each trial using a forced-choice staircase procedure and the point-of-subjective equality between the match and test regularities was estimated from the resulting psychometric functions. SRC was observed in both congruent and incongruent conditions, but with the mixed condition, the perceived regularity of the test was shifted toward rather than away from the surround regularity, an example of assimilation, not contrast. The analysis revealed no significant difference in the magnitude of SRC between the congruent and incongruent conditions, suggesting that SRC could be mediated solely by polarity agnostic mechanisms, although there are other possible explanations for the "null" result. However, trend analysis using a non-linear (sigmoidal-shaped) function indicated a significant difference between the congruent and incongruent conditions, which, together with the mixed polarity results, suggests the presence of at least some polarity selective mechanisms. Previous reports have suggested that regularity perception is encoded by the "peakedness" in the distribution of spatial-frequency-tuned linear filter responses. We modelled SRC quantitatively by incorporating peakedness with spatial-frequency-selective surround inhibition and found that the model gave a good account of the SRC data. Possible reasons for the assimilation effect-with the mixed polarity condition are discussed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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