MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The eyes have it: visual pop‐out in infants and adults

2006· article· en· W2147786055 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsAdlerYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSaccadePsychologySet (abstract data type)PerceptionCognitionAudiologyVisual perceptionVisual attentionDevelopmental psychologyEye movementCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual search studies with adults have shown that stimuli that contain a unique perceptual feature pop out from dissimilar distractors and are unaffected by the number of distractors. Studies with very young infants have suggested that they too might exhibit pop-out. However, infant studies have used paradigms in which pop-out is measured in seconds or minutes, whereas in adults pop-out occurs in milliseconds. In addition, with the previous infant paradigms the effects from higher cognitive processes such as memory cannot be separated from pop-out and selective attention. Consequently, whether infants exhibit the phenomenon of pop-out and have selective attention mechanisms as found in adults is not clear. This study was an initial attempt to design a paradigm that would provide a comparable measure between infants and adults, thereby allowing a more accurate determination of the developmental course of pop-out and selective attention mechanisms. To this end, we measured 3-month-olds' and adults' saccade latencies to visual arrays that contained either a + among Ls (target-present) or all Ls (target-absent) with set sizes of 1, 3, 5 or 8 items. In Experiment 1, infants' saccade latencies remained unchanged in the target-present conditions as set size increased, whereas their saccade latencies increased linearly in the target-absent conditions as set size increased. In Experiment 2, adults' saccade latencies in the target-present and target-absent conditions showed the same pattern as the infants. The only difference between the infants and adults was that the infants' saccade latencies were slower in every condition. These results indicate that infants do exhibit pop-out on a millisecond scale, that it is unaffected by the number of distractors, and likely have similar functioning selective attention mechanisms. Moreover, the results indicate that eye movement latencies are a more comparable and accurate measure for assessing the phenomenon of pop-out and underlying attentional mechanisms in infants.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.309 · 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