A perceptual–attentional explanation of gaze following in 3‐ and 6‐month‐olds
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
Two experiments were conducted with 3‐ and 6‐month‐olds using a standard gaze following procedure with targets to examine the possibility that perceptual–attentional constraints may affect young infants’ gaze following. In Experiment 1, either moving or stationary targets were positioned at 15° from the infants’ midline. In Experiment 2, stationary targets were positioned at either 25° or 40° from the infants’ midline. Gaze following was evaluated with three criteria. Infants made significantly more correct responses to the 15° stationary targets than all other response types combined. When targets were moving or further away, infants made significantly more correct than incorrect responses when they made a turn; however, they did not make significantly more correct responses across all trials. It is argued that the infants’ responses are indicative of perceptual–attention constraints operating where the adult head and eye turn shifts infants’ attention to the side but whether the infants then ‘gaze follow’ depends on the structure of the environment as well as the infants’ ability to disengage attention and initiate saccadic eye movements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it