How distinct sources of nuisance variability in natural images and scenes limit human stereopsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimulus variability-a form of nuisance variability-is a primary source of perceptual uncertainty in everyday natural tasks. How do different properties of natural images and scenes contribute to this uncertainty? Using binocular disparity as a model system, we report a systematic investigation of how various forms of natural stimulus variability impact performance in a stereo-depth discrimination task. With stimuli sampled from a stereo-image database of real-world scenes having pixel-by-pixel ground-truth distance data, three human observers completed two closely related double-pass psychophysical experiments. In the two experiments, each human observer responded twice to ten thousand unique trials, in which twenty thousand unique stimuli were presented. New analytical methods reveal, from this data, the specific and nearly dissociable effects of two distinct sources of natural stimulus variability-variation in luminance-contrast patterns and variation in local-depth structure-on discrimination performance, as well as the relative importance of stimulus-driven-variability and internal-noise in determining performance limits. Between-observer analyses show that both stimulus-driven sources of uncertainty are responsible for a large proportion of total variance, have strikingly similar effects on different people, and-surprisingly-make stimulus-by-stimulus responses more predictable (not less). The consistency across observers raises the intriguing prospect that image-computable models can make reasonably accurate performance predictions in natural viewing. Overall, the findings provide a rich picture of stimulus factors that contribute to human perceptual performance in natural scenes. The approach should have broad application to other animal models and other sensory-perceptual tasks with natural or naturalistic stimuli.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".