Age-related effects of size and contrast on binocular rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little currently is known about how binocular rivalry changes with aging. However, by studying factors with well-known effects on binocular rivalry, such as contrast and size, a foundation for future studies of aging can be established. The current study measured binocular rivalry in young adults (aged 20-29), junior-seniors (aged 61-69), and senior-seniors (aged 71-78). Stimuli were pairs of orthogonal oblique sine wave gratings presented dichoptically. Stimuli size (diameter = 2.4[sup]o [/sup]or 4.3[sup]o[/sup]) and contrast level (0.2 or 0.8) varied across trials. On each trial, participants tracked alternations among four percepts (i.e., the two exclusive percepts, mixed, and other). Participants were instructed to report the "other" percept if they perceived fading of the stimuli or any percept that did not match the given response options. Dependent measures were the average duration and proportion of time subjects reported viewing each percept. The average durations for both exclusive percepts were longer in older adults, supporting previous findings (Jalavisto, 1964, Gerontologia, 9, 1–8; Ukai et al., 2003, Percept. Mot. Skills, 97, 393–397). Additionally, the strength of monocular dominance increased with age, particularly when viewing our smaller stimuli, and the proportion of mixed percepts decreased with age. Across all participants there was a marginally significant increase in the proportion of mixed percepts for our larger stimuli, consistent with previous results obtained with younger participants (Blake et al., 1992, Vis. Neurosci., 8, 469–478). In the low contrast condition, senior-seniors reported a statistically higher proportion of other percepts, presumably representing a greater amount of stimulus fading. Overall the senior-seniors were the most statistically different. The sequential pattern of alternations between percepts also varied across age groups. Control experiments indicate that these results were not due to age differences in motor response time or retinal illuminance. The theoretical implications of these results will be discussed. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".