Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key demonstration of the preattentive and attentive mechanisms thought to underlie the allocation of attention in adults has been the exhibition of an asymmetry in visual search. The asymmetry is characterized by search for a feature-present target amidst feature-absent distractors being more efficient and less affected by the number of distractors than search for a feature-absent target amidst feature-present distractors. Though studies have attempted to investigate this phenomenon with infants (e.g. Adler, Inslicht, Rovee-Collier, & Gerhardstein, 1998; Colombo, Mitchell, Coldren, & Atwater, 1990), due to their methodological limitations, their findings have been unable to definitively establish the functioning of visual search mechanisms in infants as in adults. The present study, therefore, assessed eye movements as a means to examine visual search asymmetry in 3-month-olds relative to adults. Saccade latencies to a target were measured as infants and adults randomly viewed feature-present (R among Ps), feature-absent (P among Rs), and homogenous (either Rs or Ps) search arrays at set sizes of 1, 3, 5 and 8. Results indicated that neither infants' nor adults' saccade latencies to the target in the feature-present arrays were affected by increasing set sizes, suggesting that the target popped out and search was efficient. In contrast, saccade latencies to the target in the feature-absent arrays increased with increasing set-sizes for both infants and adults, suggesting that search was inefficient. The search functions were similar for infants and adults, with the exception that infants' latencies for feature-present targets were consistently greater than adults'. These findings indicate that infants exhibit a search asymmetry similar to adults, providing additional support for functional visual search and selective attention mechanisms in early infancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".