Object-based and action-based visual perception in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus (SBH) have long been known to have difficulties with visual perception. We studied how children with SBH perform 12 visual perception tasks requiring object identification, multistable representations of visual space, or visually guided overt actions. Four tasks required object-based processing (visual constancy illusions, face recognition, recognition of fragmented objects, line orientation). Four tasks required the representation of visual space in egocentric coordinates (stereopsis, visual figure-ground identification, perception of multistable figures, egocentric mental rotation). Four tasks required the coupling of visual space to overt movement (visual pursuit, figure drawing, visually guided route finding, visually guided route planning). Effect sizes, measuring the magnitude of the difference between SBH children and controls, were consistently larger for action-based than object-based visual perception tasks. Within action-based tasks, effect sizes were large and roughly comparable for tasks requiring the representation of visual space and for tasks requiring visually guided action. The results are discussed in terms of the physical and brain problems of children with SBH that limit their ability to build effective situation models of space.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it