MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020654039 · doi:10.1167/15.12.191

Characterizing Perceptual Alternations During Binocular Rivalry in Children

2015· article· en· W2020654039 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Beers, Michael Slugocki, Terri L. Lewis, Allison B. Sekuler, Patrick Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinocular rivalryPerceptPsychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyStimulus (psychology)Young adultContrast (vision)RivalryAudiologyVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although binocular rivalry has been examined thoroughly in young adults, we know relatively little about its developmental trajectory. To address this issue, we created a child‐friendly task, in which we presented pairs of orthogonal, oblique sine wave gratings to 7‐, 9‐, 11‐year‐olds, and young adults (mean = 21.25 years). Stimulus size (diameter = 1.4 or 4.4) and contrast level (0.2 or 0.8), factors with well‐known effects on rivalry in young adults, varied across trials. On each trial, participants recorded their alternations among percepts (each of the two exclusive, mixed, and fading/other) with a handheld button box. To measure accuracy of reported percepts, we intermixed pseudo-rivalry with experimental trials. For experimental trials, dependent measures included the average duration and proportion of time participants reported viewing each type of percept. Children spent a significantly greater proportion of time viewing exclusive percepts and less time viewing mixed percepts compared to young adults, a finding that provides evidence against the prediction of increased mixed percepts in children (Kovacs & Eisenberg, 2005). Sequential patterns of alternations between percepts also varied between children and young adults. For example, the proportion of return transitions increased from childhood to adulthood, specifically for low contrast conditions. Average durations for exclusive percepts did not differ significantly across age groups, contrary to previous reports suggesting faster alternation rates in children (Kovacs & Eisenberg, 2005; Hudak et al., 2011). Average durations for mixed percepts were shorter in children compared to young adults. No differences were observed between 7‐, 9‐, and 11‐year‐olds for any dependent measure. These are the first reports of several characteristics of binocular rivalry in children, specifically measures of mixed percepts and sequential transitions. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207