Age Differences in Visual Search for Traffic Signs During a Simulated Conversation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of divided attention were examined in younger adults (M = 23 years) and older adults (M = 64 years) who searched for traffic signs in digitized images of traffic scenes. Sign search was executed under single-task and dual-task conditions in scenes containing either small or large amounts of visual clutter. For both age groups, clutter and the secondary task had additive effects on search accuracy, speed, and oculomotor involvement. Compared with the younger adults, older adults were less accurate, especially with high-clutter scenes, were slower to decide that a target sign was not present, and exhibited a marginally greater divided-attention effect on reaction times. They exhibited longer fixations in the divided-attention condition, in which they also showed a disproportionate reduction in recognition memory for the content of the secondary task. Actual or potential applications of this research include methods for evaluating the distraction of conversations and safety implications of conversation on visual search behavior.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it