Biological motion: At what age do we recognize boys and girls?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological motion is a fascinating phenomenon: Not only can we recognize walking with impoverished information, but also species identity, and in humans mood and sex. We here look at a developmental aspect, namely at which age gender recognition becomes successful. Based on a data set by Troje (2002, J Vision, doi:10.1167/2.5.2), we created three sex-neutral walkers for one task: front, left-walking and right-walking. For another task we created male and female walkers with three different levels of “gender strength”. Each stimulus was presented twice in a blocked randomized fashion. Children in the age range 3 to 6 years participated; their parents had been fully acquainted with the study and signed a written agreement. In their kindergarten environment, the children were first familiarized with biological motion using the neutral front walker. When they understood the situation and were ready to participate further, two kinds of tasks were presented: Task 1 was to recognize direction of a point walker (right→left vs. left→right), here called “walking recognition”. The second task was to recognize the sex of a point walker (“girl” vs. “boy”), here called “gender recognition”. The task outcome could be “non-compliant”, “correct” or “incorrect”. We found that the youngest age group (2–3 years) reported walking direction at chance level. This rose only slightly for 3–4. Above 4 years of age walking direction was reported correctly. For gender recognition, there was a significant effect of age (p< 0.01), but gender was recognized one year later than walking direction. There was no significant effect of “gender strength” for the values we had chosen. Our results suggest: During their kindergarten period, children still develop their biological motion capability; by school age, gender recognition has matured. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".