Linear age-correlated development of inhibitory saccadic trajectory deviations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined development-related differences in saccade curvature during a goal-directed saccade task in the presence of distracting visual information. Participants were individuals who ranged in age from 6 to 30 years. Consistent with previous findings, all participants showed curvature toward the distractor stimulus at shorter saccadic reaction times (SRTs). Chronological age, however, was positively related to participants' ability to inhibit distracting information as revealed by curvature away from the distractor stimulus at longer SRTs. Interestingly, no significant differences in saccadic reaction times were observed. Results are discussed in the context of similar findings comparing older and younger adults and the putative frontal neural mechanisms that contribute to the observed developmental effect. Our present results suggest that saccadic curvature can be used a tool to measure fontal-oculomotor control interaction across the life span and can be further used to examine inhibitory functioning in special pediatric populations (e.g., having brain trauma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, frontal epilepsy).
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) | 0.002 | 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".