Moving into adult vision: five-year-olds' immaturities in detecting second-order motion versus discriminating its direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared sensitivity to second-order (contrast-modulated) motion in 5-year-olds and adults using tasks that required the detection of motion vs. the discrimination of the direction of motion. For the motion detection task, participants viewed two 15x15° vertical sine-wave gratings separated by a 5° gap. Randomly, on each trial, one grating was stationary and the stripes in the other moved outward. Participants indicated which grating was moving. For the direction discrimination task, participants viewed one 15x15° vertical sine-wave grating that moved randomly to the left or right on each trial, and indicated the direction of motion. Each participant was tested on one of four temporal frequency-velocity combinations for each task. Contrast was modulated over trials according to a staircase procedure (Harvey, 1986) to measure the minimum contrast modulation yielding 82% correct responses. Results to date from 16 adults and 16 5-year-olds indicate that 5-year-olds' thresholds are lower for detecting motion than for discriminating its direction (p p > .20). Mean thresholds were lower in adults than in 5-year-olds for both tasks (p s < .001). The findings suggest that, at 5-years of age, the neural mechanisms underlying the detection of second-order motion are more mature than the mechanisms underlying the discrimination of the direction of second-order motion. A possible explanation is that, under the conditions tested, 5-year-olds relied on relatively mature temporal frequency-sensitive mechanisms to detect motion and relatively immature motion-sensitive mechanisms to discriminate the direction of motion. This hypothesis is supported by evidence that sensitivity to high temporal frequencies is mature at 12 weeks of age (Regan, 1981), while sensitivity to direction of second-order motion is still immature at 5 years of age (Ellemberg et al., 2003).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".