Infant sensitivity to radial optic flow fields during the first months of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the development of the sensitivity for "optic flow," a large-scale pattern perceived during locomotion. The present study aimed to examine infants' coherence thresholds to radial optic flow motion during the first months of life. Using a forced-choice preferential looking technique, infants' sensitivities were measured with a moving radial stimulus varying in coherence on one side and a corresponding non-directional radial noise pattern on the other. Coherence thresholds for 11 infants from each of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 months of age groups were studied by a constant stimuli method. In the second experiment, seven infants were followed longitudinally (tested at 2, 4, 6, and 8 months) using the same stimuli. Results of both studies demonstrated significant improvement for the sensitivity of expanding radial motion during the first months of life. Finally, the 2 directions of radial motion were tested (expanding and contracting) for participants followed longitudinally (from 2 to 8 months). Data showed superior sensitivity for expansion versus contraction direction of motion. This dissociation may suggest that sensitivity to direction corresponding with forward locomotion (expansion) develops at a faster rate than the opposite direction encountered when moving backwards (contraction). The sensitivity improvement for expanding patterns likely reflects the maturation of cerebral areas subtending motion integration in infancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".