MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170700328 · doi:10.1167/7.4.9

Orientation discrimination in 5-year-olds and adults tested with luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated gratings

2007· article· en· W2170700328 on OpenAlexaff
T. L. Lewis, Andrew Kingdon, Dave Ellemberg, Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)LuminanceOrientation (vector space)Modulation (music)Tilt (camera)VisibilityOpticsPsychologySpatial frequencyAudiologyAmplitudeMathematicsPhysicsAcousticsMedicineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared thresholds for discriminating orientation by 5-year-olds and adults for first-order (luminance-modulated) and second-order (contrast-modulated) gratings. To achieve equal visibility, we set the contrast for each age and condition at a fixed multiple of the contrast threshold for discriminating horizontal from vertical gratings. The minimum tilt that could be discriminated from vertical was four to five times larger in 5-year-olds than in adults, even when the noise was removed from the first-order stimuli and amplitude modulation increased to 0.90. Thresholds at both ages were significantly worse (1.2-1.5 times worse) for second-order modulation than for equally visible first-order modulation, and 5-year-olds were equally immature for both types of pattern. Together, the findings suggest that orientation discrimination is slow to develop and worse for second-order than first-order patterns in both children and adults.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207