Visual after-effect of perceived regularity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Regular repeating patterns are prominent features in a visual scene.Here I consider whether regularity is an adaptable feature that produces a subsequent after-effect and whether a first-or second-order process mediates that after-effect.Method: Stimuli consisted of a 7 by 7 arrangement of elements on a baseline grid.The position of each element was randomly jittered from its baseline position by an amount that determined its degree of pattern irregularity.The elements of the pattern consisted of dark Gaussian blobs (GB), difference of Gaussians (DOG) or random binary patterns (RBP).Observers adapted for 60 seconds to a pair of patterns above and below fixation with a different degree of regularity, then adjusted the relative degree of regularity of two subsequently presented test patterns.The size of the after-effect at the point of subjective equality (PSE) was given by the baseline removed difference in regularity at the PSE or log ratio of the physical element jitter of the two test patterns at the PSE.Results: PSEs revealed that regularity is an adaptable feature that produces a unidirectional after-effect; specifically that adaptation only causes test patterns to appear less regular.The after-effect displayed transfer from GB adaptors to both DOG and RB test patterns and from DOG and (RBP) adaptors to GB patterns.Conclusion: Pattern regularity is an adaptable feature in vision, which produces a novel unidirectional after-effect I have termed Regularity After-Effect, or RAE.I propose second-order spatialfrequency channels as candidate mechanisms of regularity processing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it