Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies measured the development of different aspects of auditory and visual perception separately without the possibility of comparing their rate of maturation. The results of one study that did compare the development of both modalities suggest that temporal processing develops more rapidly for the auditory compared to the visual modality (Droit-Volet, Tourret, & Wearden, 2004). The present study charted and compared the development of sensory responses to basic visual and auditory stimuli. We measured contrast (visual condition) and pure-tone (auditory condition) detection and discrimination for physically similar stimuli. The visual stimuli consisted of luminance modulated sine-wave gratings that had a spatial frequency of 1 and 5 cpd. The auditory stimuli consisted of pure-tones that had a frequency of 500 and 4000 Hz. A control condition equated the amplitude of the auditory and visual stimuli for the frequency discrimination condition. Thresholds were measured with a temporal 2-AFC procedure combined with an adaptive staircase. Participants were children 6, 8, and 10 years of age and adults (n=16 per group). Statistical analyses using a GLM showed that detection thresholds in the auditory modality are mature by 6 and 8 years of age for the lower and higher frequencies, respectively. In contrast, detection thresholds in the visual modality are still immature at 10 years for the low frequency and become mature at 8 years of age for the higher frequency. A similar pattern was found for frequency discrimination. In the auditory modality, it is mature by 8 years for both frequencies, whilst in the visual modality it is mature by 10 years of age for the lower and 8 years for the higher frequency. Together, these results suggest that sensitivity in the auditory modality matures more rapidly during early childhood and achieves adult levels earlier than sensitivity in the visual modality.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".