What you see is what you get: contextual modulation of face scanning in typical and atypical development
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
Infants' visual scanning of social scenes is influenced by both exogenously and endogenously driven shifts of attention. We manipulate these factors by contrasting individual infants' distribution of visual attention to the eyes relative to the mouth when viewing complex dynamic scenes with multiple communicative signals (e.g. peek-a-boo), relative to the same infant viewing simpler scenes where only single features move (moving eyes, mouth and hands). We explore the relationship between context-dependent scanning patterns and later social and communication outcomes in two groups of infants, with and without familial risk for autism. Our findings suggest that in complex scenes requiring more endogenous control of attention, increased scanning of the mouth region relative to the eyes at 7 months is associated with superior expressive language (EL) at 36 months. This relationship holds even after controlling for outcome group. In contrast, in simple scenes where only the mouth is moving, those infants, irrespective of their group membership, who direct their attention to the repetitive moving feature, i.e. the mouth, have poorer EL at 36 months. Taken together, our findings suggest that scanning of complex social scenes does not begin as strikingly different in those infants later diagnosed with autism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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