The Development of Endogenous Orienting: Control Over the Scope of Attention and Lateral Asymmetries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the development of endogenous orienting in children ages 6, 10, and 14 years and in adults. Participants were asked to respond with a button press to targets appearing in the left or right visual field. Cues that correctly or incorrectly indicated the target's location preceded the appearance of targets at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 100 and 800 msec. Cues that signaled a target's appearance, but not its location, were also included. In addition to raw reaction times, orienting effects, benefits, and costs were examined. Two main findings emerged: First, for all participants except the youngest children effect sizes increased with increasing SOA. The absence of an SOA effect in the youngest group is interpreted as evidence of their difficulty in voluntarily adjusting the scope of their attentional focus. In addition, field asymmetries changed with the age of the respondent: 6-year-olds showed a right-field advantage, 10-year-olds failed to show any laterality differences, and 14-year-olds and adults responded more quickly to targets in the left than in the right field. This finding is consistent with developmental data on a number of cognitive processes, and is interpreted within a developmental framework of right-hemisphere dominance for spatial orienting (cf. Mesulam, 1998).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".