Age‐Related Changes in Conjunctive Visual Search in Children with and without<scp>ASD</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual-spatial strengths observed among people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be associated with increased efficiency of selective attention mechanisms such as visual search. In a series of studies, researchers examined the visual search of targets that share features with distractors in a visual array and concluded that people with ASD showed enhanced performance on visual search tasks. However, methodological limitations, the small sample sizes, and the lack of developmental analysis have tempered the interpretations of these results. In this study, we specifically addressed age-related changes in visual search. We examined conjunctive visual search in groups of children with (n = 34) and without ASD (n = 35) at 7-9 years of age when visual search performance is beginning to improve, and later, at 10-12 years, when performance has improved. The results were consistent with previous developmental findings; 10- to 12-year-old children were significantly faster visual searchers than their 7- to 9-year-old counterparts. However, we found no evidence of enhanced search performance among the children with ASD at either the younger or older ages. More research is needed to understand the development of visual search in both children with and without ASD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".