Off-kilter: Orientation discrimination during childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the only study measuring sensitivity to orientation during childhood, we showed that 5-year-olds are four times worse than adults when tested with high contrast gratings (Lewis, et al., 2007). Here, we tested older children to chart the development of sensitivity to orientation between 5 years and adulthood. Methods. We measured orientation discrimination in 20 7-year-olds (+/− 3 months) and 20 9-year-olds (+/− 3 months) using methods identical to those used previously with 5-year-olds and adults (Lewis, et al., 2007). The stimuli consisted of 1 cpd black-and-white high contrast sine-wave gratings within a 10° circular aperture. The task on each trial was to indicate whether the top of the stripes was tilted to the left or right of vertical. Tilt was varied over trials according to a ML-PEST staircase procedure (Harvey, 1986) to measure the minimum tilt discriminable from vertical. Results. Minimum discriminable tilt improved with age (p ps ps [[gt]] 0.30). The data were best fit by an exponential function (r2= 0.35, p Conclusions. The pattern of development for sensitivity to orientation (this study) resembles those for the development of sensitivity to spatial frequency (Patel, et al., 2009) and contrast (Ellemberg et al, 1999). These similar patterns are consistent with theories of common underlying mechanisms (Vincent & Regan, 1995; Shapely et al., 2003). The immaturities at 5 years of age may be caused by higher internal noise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".