MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W98173823 · doi:10.16910/jemr.1.3.4

Probing Bottom-up Processing with Multistable Images

2009· article· en· W98173823 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

VenueJournal of Eye Movement Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsTop-down and bottom-up designFixation (population genetics)Computer scienceWeightingVisual processingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionEye movementSelection (genetic algorithm)ComputationImage processingPattern recognition (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyAlgorithmImage (mathematics)PerceptionBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The selection of fixation targets involves a combination of top-down and bottom-up processing. The role of bottom-up processing can be enhanced by using multistable stimuli because their constantly changing appearance seems to depend predominantly on stimulusdriven factors. We used this approach to investigate whether visual processing models based on V1 need to be extended to incorporate specific computations attributed to V4. Eye movements of 8 subjects were recorded during free viewing of the Marroquin pattern in which illusory circles appear and disappear. Fixations were concentrated on features arranged in concentric rings within the pattern. Comparison with simulated fixation data demonstrated that the saliency of these features can be predicted with appropriate weighting of lateral connections in existing V1 models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.304 · 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