Improving the Effectiveness of the Infant Contrast Sensitivity Card Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on results from an earlier prototype, custom software and printing techniques were developed to construct a new card-based test of contrast sensitivity (CS) for nonverbal subjects. Compared with the prototype, the new CS card test contains three improvements: (1) larger, more salient test gratings; (2) higher contrast warm-up cards for each spatial frequency set; and (3) smaller contrast step size between adjacent cards. The success of the new cards was evaluated by testing 3.5- and 12-month-old human infants. Results indicated that the new version of the test required little time to complete (mean, 6.5 min) and provided accurate estimates of visual acuity. Also, group contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) showed substantial development from 3.5 to 12 months of age. Surprisingly, however, group CSFs obtained with the new cards were lower than those obtained with the prototype, a discrepancy that may be due to differences in space average luminance between the two sets of cards. In all, the new CS card procedure possesses several merits that give it potential as an option for assessing spatial vision in infants, toddlers, and subjects with multiple impairments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".