MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046910416 · doi:10.1167/3.9.281

The effect of dot lifetime, dot size, & percent area covered by dots on motion coherence thresholds: Implications for diagnosing reading difficulties

2010· article· en· W2046910416 on OpenAlexaff
N. S. Wada, Michael W. von Grünau, Guy Lacroix, Roberto G. de Almeida, Rick Gurnsey, Norman Segalowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotStimulus (psychology)PsychologyPhysicsOptoelectronicsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Prior research has established that individuals with reading difficulties tend to perform more poorly than controls on tasks requiring them to identify the overall direction of motion within a random dot kinematogram (RDK). However, it is unclear whether the size of the difference in performance between individuals with reading difficulties and their ‘normal’ counterparts is a function of reading ability or the stimulus parameters used. In this investigation, we examine the degree to which the lifetime of dots, the size of dots, and the percent area covered by dots affect the ability to identify the direction of motion in normal individuals. Methods: Observers (N=7) were asked to indicate whether the global direction of the dots contained within a 3 degree square region was leftward or rightward. The dots within the RDK varied in terms of lifetime (16.7 or 33.3ms), size (1 or 2 pixels in diameter), and percent area covered (1 or 21%). Results: Changes in the parameters of the RDK affected subjects' ability to identify the direction of motion. When the lifetime of the dots was short and the percent area covered was high, observers had more difficulty in judging the overall direction of movement for larger than for smaller dots. In addition, when the lifetime of the dots was short and the dot size was large, observers had more difficulty in identifying the motion direction for higher than for lower percent area covered. In contrast, these effects disappeared when the lifetime of the dots was lengthened; the overall pattern of results suggests that increasing the lifetime of the dots increased the difficulty of the task. Conclusion: Motion coherence thresholds are dependent on the parameters used during testing. One implication of this investigation is that the specific combination of parameters used may facilitate or hinder the detection of differences between those with reading difficulties and controls.

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)0.010
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207