The Relationship Between Measures of Cognitive Attention and Behavioral Ratings of Attention in Typically Developing Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we explored the relation between performance on cognitive measures of attention (selection, sustained, and control) and behavioral ratings of inattention and hyperactivity in a sample of typically developing children aged 3 to 7 years. We also examined the influence of chronological age and IQ on both task performance and behavior ratings. Four well-documented attention paradigms were employed, the Visearch (single-target search) task as a measure of selective attention, the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) as a measure of sustained attention, the Day-Night task as a measure of response inhibition, and the Visearch (dual-target search) task as a measure of inhibitory control. The Conners' Rating Scales (Cognitive/Inattention and Hyperactivity subscales) were used to allow for a finer tuned comparison of cognitive performance as related to inattentive behaviors versus hyperactive behaviors. Findings indicate that accuracy and speed in the Visearch dual search task were the most sensitive measures relating respectively to inattentive and hyperactive rated behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".