MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510108431 · doi:10.1037/cep0000096

How the baby learns to see: Donald O. Hebb Award Lecture, Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science, Ottawa, June 2015.

2016· article· en· W2510108431 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarch of Dimes FoundationNational Institutes of HealthJames S. McDonnell FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyCognitive scienceCognitionPsycINFOVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hebb's (1949) book The Organisation of Behaviour presented a novel hypothesis about how the baby learns to see. This article summarizes the results of my research program that evaluated Hebb's hypothesis: first, by studying infants' eye movements and initial perceptual abilities and second, by studying the effect of visual deprivation (e.g., congenital cataracts) on later perceptual development. Collectively, the results support Hebb's hypothesis that the baby does indeed learn to see. Early visual experience not only drives the baby's initial scanning of objects, but also sets up the neural architecture that will come to underlie adults' perception. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.008

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207