Saccadic reaction times and speed of information processing development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants speed of information processing (SIP) has typically been assessed by habituation and preferential looking paradigms (see Bornstein, 1998; Orlain & Rose, 1997). These kinds of tasks, however, are incongruent with how SIP is assessed with adult populations and differ from adult theories of SIP (Jensen, 2005; Smith, 1968). With adults, the manual reaction time (RT) to press a button (among several choice buttons) is usually taken as an index of SIP (Hick, 1952; Jensen, 1987). Consistently it has been found that manual RTs increase with the log2 of the number of choices, or bits of information, (Jensen, 1987) which has become known as Hick's law (Hick, 1952). Although infants cannot perform manual button responses, they can provide us with saccadic RTs. In the present study we measured 5- and 9-month-old infants' saccadic RTs to increasing bits of information in a visual choice RT task. Five-month-old infants' saccadic RTs increased with more bits of information in accordance with Hick's law. Nine-month-old infants' saccadic eye RTs did increase with more bits but not to the extent as the younger infants. Adults showed no increase in saccadic RTs with increased bits of information, which is consistent with past studies (e.g. Kverega, Boucher, & Hughes; Saslow, 1967). These data indicate that as infants age, and presumably as their SIP becomes faster, they are able to process more information per unit of time. Thus, there appears to be a developmental trend that occurs with measuring SIP through saccadic eye movements. By using this method of measuring SIP in infancy we are better able to make direct comparisons to the adult literature.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".