The modulation of visual orienting reflexes across the lifespan
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
The development of reflexive and voluntary shifts of visual attention, as well as relations between the two forms of shifting, were examined in three groups of children (5, 7, and 9 years old), one group of young adults (24 years old), and two groups of senior adults (young seniors with an average age of 69 years, and old seniors with an average age of 81 years). The task entailed response to the detection of a target (black dot) in one of four possible locations in the visual field. Relations between reflexive and voluntary shifts of attention were gauged by the degree to which flash and arrow facilitation and inhibition were observed in response to the presentation of both arrow and flash cues together in one trial. All age groups oriented reflexively in response to a flash cue and utilized the arrow cue to orient attention strategically. When flash and arrow cues were presented in quick succession and thereby competed for attention, the youngest children and oldest seniors were least efficient and flexible in their approach to the orienting task as they had difficulty modulating visual reflexes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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