The Development of Sensitivity to Biological Motion in Noise
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
We investigated developmental changes in sensitivity to biological motion by asking 6-year-olds, 9-year-olds, and adults (twenty-four in each group) to discriminate point-light biological motion displays depicting one of a variety of human movements from scrambled versions of the same displays. When tested without noise dots, participants at all ages performed near ceiling levels and no differences in accuracy were found among the three age groups. Age differences emerged in the second task, in which we used a staircase procedure to determine threshold values of the number of noise dots that could be tolerated in producing a percentage correct value corresponding to a d' value of 1.4. Sensitivity to biological motion improved linearly with age (p < 0.01), with 6-year-olds performing significantly more poorly than adults. This immature performance contrasts with adult-like accuracy by 4 years of age for sensitivity to global motion (Parrish et al, 2005 Vision Research 45 827-837). The comparison implies an immaturity at 6 years of age in the neural networks involved specifically in the processing of biological motion, networks that may include the superior temporal sulcus (STS).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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