Comparison of sensitivity to first- and second-order local motion in 5-year-olds and adults
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 compared sensitivity to first- versus second-order motion in 5-year-olds and adults tested with stimuli moving at slower (1.5 degrees s(-1)) and faster (6 degrees s(-1)) velocities. Amplitude modulation thresholds were measured for the discrimination of the direction of motion (up vs. down) for luminance-modulated (first-order) and contrast-modulated (second-order) horizontal sine-wave gratings. At the slower velocity (1.5 degrees s(-1)), the differences in threshold between 5-year-olds and adults were small but significant for both first- and second-order stimuli (0.02 and 0.05 log units worse than adults' thresholds, respectively). However, at the faster velocity (6 degrees s(-1)), the differences in threshold between the children and adults were 8 times greater for second-order motion than for first-order motion. Specifically, children's thresholds were 0.16 log units worse than those of adults for second-order motion compared to only 0.02 log units worse for first-order motion. The different pattern of results for first-order and second-order motion at the faster velocity (6 degrees s(-1)) is consistent with models positing different mechanisms for the two types of motion and suggests that those mechanisms mature at different rates.
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