MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long trajectory for the development of sensitivity to global and biological motion

2011· article· en· W2135664511 on OpenAlexafffund
Bat‐Sheva Hadad, Daphne Maurer, Terri L. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Society for Eye Research
KeywordsBiological motionMotion (physics)Sensitivity (control systems)TrajectoryPsychologyNoise (video)Motion perceptionPsychophysicsComputer visionMonotonic functionAudiologyArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)SIGNAL (programming language)CommunicationMathematicsComputer scienceNeurosciencePhysicsMathematical analysisMedicineGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a staircase procedure to test sensitivity to (1) global motion in random-dot kinematograms moving at 4° and 18° s(-1) and (2) biological motion. Thresholds were defined as (1) the minimum percentage of signal dots (i.e. the maximum percentage of noise dots) necessary for accurate discrimination of upward versus downward motion or (2) the maximum percentage of noise dots tolerated for accurate discrimination of biological from non-biological motion. Subjects were adults and children aged 6-8, 9-11, and 12-14 years (n = 20 per group). Contrary to earlier research, results revealed a similar, long developmental trajectory for sensitivity to global motion at both slower and faster speeds and for biological motion. Thresholds for all three tasks improved monotonically between 6 and 14 years of age, at which point they were adult-like. The results suggest that the extrastriate mechanisms that integrate local motion cues over time and space take many years to mature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations144
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental ScienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207