Low-level features predict perceived similarity for naturalistic images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms by which humans perceptually organize individual regions of a visual scene to generate a coherent scene representation remain largely unknown. Our perception of statistical regularities has been relatively well-studied in simple stimuli, and explicit computational mechanisms that use low-level image features (e.g., luminance, contrast energy) to explain these perceptions have been described. Here, we investigate to what extent observers can effectively use such low-level information present in isolated naturalistic scene regions to facilitate associations between said regions. Across two experiments, participants were shown an isolated reference patch, then required to select which of two subsequently presented patches came from the same scene as the reference (two-alternative forced choice method). In Experiment 1, participants made their judgments based on unaltered image patches, and were consistently above chance when performing such association judgments. Additionally, participants' responses were well-predicted by a generalized linear multilevel model using predictors based on low-level feature similarity metrics (specifically, pixel-wise luminance and phase-invariant structure correlations). In Experiment 2, participants were presented with unaltered image regions, thresholded image regions, or regions reduced to only their edge content. Performance for thresholded and edge regions was significantly poorer than for unaltered image regions. Nonetheless, the model still correlated well with participants' judgments. Our findings suggest that image region associations can be accounted for using low-level feature correlations, suggesting such basic features are strongly associated with those underlying judgments made for complex visual 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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".