Choosing between detection and identification tasks in developmental studies: Is a shift in paradigm necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In developmental studies, either identification or detection paradigms can be used to assess various types of visual functioning. We suggest that detection paradigms may be more suited for assessing the perceptual abilities of the very young (i.e., three-year-olds) and atypical development children, given their less-developed communicative and cognitive capabilities. The objective of the present study was to systematically assess and contrast identification and detection paradigms in order to determine whether paradigm-contingent differences exist at the perceptual level as a function of development. Typically-developing participants were placed in one of 5 age groups (5–6, 7–8, 9–10, 11–12 and 18+ years). For each participant, sensitivity to static and dynamic gratings defined by either luminance-contrast (with and without noise) or texture-contrast (noise) was measured using both identification (i.e, vertical/horizontal or left/right) and detection paradigm. For the latter, participants were asked to indicate which of two spatial locations contained the grating (versus noise or uniform background), regardless of its orientation or direction. An adaptive staircase procedure was used to obtain thresholds. In addition, the developmental level of each participant, as defined by verbal mental ability, was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) for all participants. For all three experimental conditions, no significant differences in sensitivity were found between the detection and identification paradigms as a function of age. These results suggest that at least within the context of the tasks assessed, a paradigm-contingent difference in sensitivity does not exist at a perceptual level from the ages of 5 years through adulthood. We therefore argue that when working with either very young or atypically developing participants presenting with impairments in attention, working memory and/or developmental delay, using a spatial 2AFC detection paradigm may be a more appropriate paradigm for assessing visual function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".