MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124476178 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32834d2f49

Assessing spatial perception in aging using an adapted Landolt-C technique

2011· article· en· W2124476178 on OpenAlexaff
Armando Bertone, Jacalyn Guy, Jocelyn Faubert

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research CouncilEssilor (Canada)Université de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminancePsychologyAudiologyPerceptionContrast (vision)Visual perceptionTexture (cosmology)Visual processingPsychophysicsDevelopmental psychologyOpticsArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeurosciencePhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated luminance and texture-defined spatial information processing in normal aging using an adapted Landolt-C technique. Sensitivity to C-target stimuli (optotypes) was measured for four age groups: 18-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65+ years. Participants indicated optotype gap-opening orientations (up, down, left, or right) at different levels of luminance or texture contrast. Although sensitivity did not differ across age group for the luminance-defined optotypes, sensitivity for texture-defined optotypes for the 65+ years age group was significantly decreased relative to that of the youngest group (18-34 years). Results suggest that age-related changes in visual function can be dissociated at different levels of processing, and may be better defined using stimuli that necessarily depend on higher levels of neural functioning to be perceived.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207