Temporal frequency matters: Sensitivity to second-order stimuli in 5-year-olds and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared 5-year-olds' and adults' sensitivity to moving second-order (SO) gratings in four combinations of temporal frequency (TF) and velocity (V). Contrast was modulated over trials to measure the minimum contrast modulation yielding 82% correct responses. Adults and 5-year-olds (n=64/ age grp) provided individual thresholds for one of the four TFxV conditions (TF = 6Hz and V = 6 or 1.5 d/s; TF = 0.75Hz and V = 6 or 3 d/s) and for two tasks (direction discrimination and discrimination of a moving from a simultaneously presented static grating). Five-year-olds had higher thresholds than adults for all TFxV conditions, especially when TF = 0.75Hz. Control studies with an orientation discrimination task indicate that 5-year-olds' higher thresholds cannot be explained solely by poorer sensitivity to the patterns. When TF = 6Hz, but not when TF = 0.75 Hz, participants at both ages were more sensitive to SO information when the task was to discriminate a moving from a static grating than when it was to discriminate direction. Based on Seiffert and Cavanaugh (1998), it is likely that when TF is 6 Hz, participants use position-tracking mechanisms to discriminate direction and they use flicker-sensitive mechanisms to discriminate a moving from a static grating. At lower TFs, they likely use position-tracking mechanisms for both tasks (Seiffert & Cavanaugh,1998). Thus, the differential immaturities evident in the results likely reflect different rates of development for these underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".