Visual filtering and covert orienting in persons with Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A forced-choice reaction time (RT) task was used to examine the efficiency of visual filtering (the inhibition of processing of irrelevant stimuli) and covert orienting (shifts of visual attention independent of eye movement) components of attention in persons with Down syndrome ( n = 20) and children of average intelligence ( n = 20) matched for mental age (MA) (average MA = approximately 5.4 years). Conditions varied with regard to presence or absence of distractors, and the validity (valid, invalid, or neutral) of location cues. Contrary to expectations, persons with Down syndrome and MA-matched children of average intelligence at approximately age 5 showed similar patterns of performance on a task that required filtering distracting stimuli and searching for relevant information in the visual field. Both groups responded more efficiently to a target preceded by a valid cue as compared to a target preceded by an invalid or neutral cue. In addition, performance was more efficient with a target that was presented without irrelevant information as compared to one that was flanked on either side by extraneous, nontarget information and therefore necessitated filtering for efficient performance. These two findings indicate that: (1) disengaging from the location of an incorrect cue, and then searching for, locating, and responding to a target requires more time and attention than simply locating and responding to a target that has been validly cued; and (2) processing and responding to a target flanked by extraneous information entails filtering, and therefore requires more time and resources than simply responding to a target without distractors. In general, the development of visual reflexive, covert orienting, and filtering are intact in persons with Down syndrome relative to their level of functioning at an MA level of approximately 5 years, a period that is critical in the development of attentional processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".