Form and motion processing in preterm children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct neural areas are involved in the global processing of form and motion cues. These two types of visual processing also develop at different rates, and may be differentially vulnerable to early brain injury or atypical neurodevelopment (Braddick et al., 2003, 2007). Children born extremely prematurely show elevated global motion coherence thresholds relative to full-term peers (Downie et al., 2003; Jakobson et al., 2006), and those with white matter pathology do not show normal sensitivity to biological motion (Pavolva et al., 2003, 2004). Here, we measured sensitivity to global form, global motion, and biological motion in a sample of 23 5- to 9-year-old children born at 4.1, ps [[lt]]0.05), with performance being correlated with birthweight and gestational age for global form sensitivity only. For each premature child, we calculated a deficit score for each task (ratio of threshold for premature child vs mean threshold for 3 age-matched controls). A deficit score of 1 indicates performance comparable to controls', while a score greater than 1 indicates some level of impairment. A series of one-sample t-tests revealed that mean deficit scores were significantly greater than 1 for biological motion and global motion (ps [[lt]].03). In contrast, the mean deficit score for global form was not significantly different from 1. Rates of clinically significant impairment (deficit score ≥ 2) were 4 times more common for global motion than for global form (p [[lt]].04). Our findings of greater deficits in biological motion and global motion than in global form in preterm children compliment previous studies demonstrating dorsal stream vulnerability (e.g., Braddick et al., 2003, 2007).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".