Six-month-old infants' ability to detect contours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children's ability to perform contour integration of individual elements in the presence of stimulus noise develops slowly (Káldy & Kovács, 2003; Kov ács, 2000). A recent study with 3-month-old infants has demonstrated a stark immaturity in their contour integration mechanisms (Gerhardstein, Kovacs, Ditre, & Feher, 2004). The goal of this study was to further investigate the developmental trend in infants' ability to integrate individual elements into whole contours. METHOD: Six-month-olds' discrimination of differently shaped contours was tested via a cueing paradigm in which a circle or square contour defined by the alignment of oriented Gabor patches, presented centrally and embedded in a background noise of randomly oriented Gabor patches, cued the subsequent presentation of a target on either the right or left. The relation of background noise spacing over contours spacing was set to 1.0 and 0.9. Eye movements were analyzed for correct anticipatory eye movements to the targets in response to which contour cue had been presented. RESULTS: All results were compared to random performance (no discrimination of contour cues) of 50% correct. Infants correctly anticipated for circles 70.8% and correctly for squares 69.5% in the 1.0 condition. For the 0.9 condition, infants correctly anticipated only 39.8% for circles and 60.1% for squares. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that infants are able to discriminate between circle and square contours better than chance in the 1.0 condition, but not for the 0.9 condition. These data suggest that 6-month-old infants' contour integration ability is not much different from that of 3-month-olds'.
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) | 0.000 | 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".