MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2083947704 · doi:10.1167/11.15.53

The Effect of Dot Speed and Density on the Maturation of Global Motion Perception

2011· article· en· W2083947704 on OpenAlexaff
S. Narasimhan, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)PsychologyMotion perceptionMotion (physics)PhysicsTypically developingStimulus (psychology)AudiologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global motion stimuli are commonly used to study motion perception, including its development, in human and nonhuman primates. The age at which this aspect of motion perception matures to adult levels is currently a point of contention, with published values ranging from before 3 years of age (Parrish et al., 2005) to after 12 years of age (Lewis et al., 2010). Specific stimulus attributes such as dot speed and density vary considerably across previous studies, which may explain the conflicting results. We measured coherence thresholds for global motion direction discrimination in 5 year-old children and in adults (18–23 years) at two dot speeds (1 and 4 deg/s) and three dot densities (1, 15, 30 dots/deg2). Adult coherence thresholds were constant at approximately 10%, regardless of speed or density. Child coherence thresholds were significantly higher, and were most immature at the slow speed and at the sparsest density. The speed finding confirms previous results (Ellemberg et al., 2004; Hayward et al., 2010). The novel density finding can account for much of the discrepancy in the current developmental literature. These results caution against drawing firm conclusions about visual maturation or deficits in clinical populations based on only a single measurement at a specific combination of speed and density.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→