MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052628860 · doi:10.1167/10.7.496

Sensitivity to Biological and Global Motion: Similar in their Protracted Development but Different in Susceptibility to Visual Deprivation

2010· article· en· W2052628860 on OpenAlexaff
Terri L. Lewis, Bat Sheva Hadad, D. Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion (physics)Motion perceptionAudiologyContrast (vision)AbnormalitySensitivity (control systems)Biological motionNoise (video)PsychophysicsPsychologyPerceptionArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a staircase procedure to test sensitivity to biological and global motion in normally developing children aged 6-9, 9-12, and 12-15 years, and adults (n = 20 per group), as well as in eight patients treated for bilateral congenital cataracts (11-30 years old). In the biological motion task, participants discriminated biological motion from scrambled displays, with the number of added noise dots varied across trials. Thresholds were defined as the maximum number of noise dots tolerated for accurate discrimination. In the global motion tasks, participants discriminated upward from downward motion in random-dot kinematograms moving at 4 and 18 deg/sec in separate blocks. Thresholds were defined as the minimum percentage of signal dots required to accurately determine the overall direction of motion. Results revealed a similar, long developmental trajectory for sensitivity to biological and global motion (ps<0.0001). Only the 12- to 15-year'olds showed adult-like performance, suggesting that the extrastriate mechanisms that integrate local motion cues over time and space take many years to mature. Although global motion thresholds were lower for faster than slower speeds at every age (ps<0.0001), developmental trends did not differ across the two speeds (p>0.10). In contrast, early bilateral deprivation had different effects on the two types of motion perception. Z-scores based on age-appropriate norms indicated a large deficit in processing both speeds of global motion (mean Z-score = -4.21 and -5.85 for fast and slow speeds, ps<0.01) but no abnormality for processing biological motion (mean Z-score = -0.19, p>0.70). The adverse effect of visual deprivation was equivalent at the two speeds of global motion (p>0.20) and greater than the (non-significant) effect on biological motion (ps<0.01). The spared sensitivity to biological motion might be explained by a neural network that is stimulated by body movements during the period of visual deprivation.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207