Habituation in high‐risk infants: reliability and patterns of responding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined both the reliability of infant‐controlled habituation and patterns of responding in a group of high‐risk infants (mean age 16 mos). Good test–retest reliability was found for mean, total, and baseline looking time for one of the stimuli. Classification of infants' pattern of performance yielded two groups: linear (57%) and non‐linear (29%) responders; 14% of cases could not be classified because of cross‐session inconsistencies in performance. Linear responders had shorter total looking times, fewer trials to criterion, and showed more habituation than non‐linear responders, thus validating the linear/non‐linear distinction. Our findings indicate that the infant‐controlled habituation task can be used reliably with infants who are at high risk for developmental disorders. Indeed, we provide evidence that this task is not only reliable, but may also provide meaningful distinctions between infants within the high‐risk population. Discussion focuses on the role of attention in distinguishing between short (linear) and long (non‐linear) lookers. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".