Multiple-object tracking among individuals with Down syndrome and typically developing children
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
We investigated differences in multiple-object tracking among individuals with Down syndrome (DS) as compared to typically developing children matched on a visual-spatial mental age of approximately 5.5 years. In order to ensure that these effects did not originate in differences in encoding or reporting the positions of targets in distracters after a delay, immediate and delayed report were measured for static items. Although their immediate and delayed report for multiple static items was comparable to that of the typically developing children, the participants with DS performed as if they were only capable of tracking a single item at a time regardless of the number of targets that needed to be tracked. This finding is surprising because the operations used in multiple-object tracking are thought to be necessary for visuospatial tasks, which are an area of relative strength among persons with DS. These results call into question the idea that abilities or deficits in multiple-object tracking predict visuospatial performance, and highlight ways that atypical development can inform our understanding of typical development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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