Dissociating higher-order visual processing in typical and atypical development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research with adults has established that higher-order visual information is processed along two functionally specialized pathways: a ventral stream and a dorsal stream. Surprisingly, however, less is known about how this dissociation emerges and matures during development. The present study (1) investigated typical development of higher-order visual processes and (2) determined whether the developmental trajectories of these visual processes differed for atypically developing individuals. Methods: In Experiment 1, 30 typically developing adolescents (age 10-16 years) completed four computerized experimental paradigms designed to differentially draw on dorsal or ventral processing resources. These tasks required participants to (a) either decide if two abstract shapes match (ventral task) or fit together (dorsal task) or (b) either pay attention to the identity (ventral) or the location (dorsal) of drawings of buildings, upright faces, and inverted faces. Results show no association between age and accuracy, but reaction times were negatively correlated with age. These relationships held for both dorsal and ventral tasks. Data are compared with accuracy and reaction time results from young adults (age 18-25 years). In Experiment 2, the same computer tasks were completed by a group of atypically developing children with congenital hypothyroidism (CH), a paediatric endocrine disorder caused by lack of thyroid hormone (TH) that is present at birth. TH is a critical endocrine modulator of normal brain development known to affect development of the visual system. CH had significantly poorer accuracy scores on both ventral and dorsal tasks, but were also significantly slower to judge identity than controls. Conclusions: First, our findings suggest that there is very little development in the dorsal and ventral pathways after ten years of age in typically developing individuals, although processing speed does increase with age. Secondly, TH insufficiency during gestation is associated with impairments in higher-order visual processing in adolescence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".