MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751643348 · doi:10.1167/17.10.1388

Amodal completion requires more time in older adults

2017· article· en· W2751643348 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Cali, Patrick Bennett, Allison B. Sekuler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmodal perceptionRectangleStimulus (psychology)PsychologyObserver (physics)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer sciencePerceptionGeometryMedicineNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In everyday settings, objects frequently partially occlude each other. Thus, amodal completion is critical for object recognition in naturalistic contexts. However, the effects of aging on amodal completion remain unexplored. Therefore, we measured the extent and time course of amodal completion for younger and older adults using a shape discrimination task in which subjects judged the orientation of a moving rectangle as horizontal or vertical (Murray, Sekuler & Bennett, 2001). Observers completed three conditions: 1) complete, with the entire outline of the rectangle visible; 2) fragmented, with corners of the rectangle deleted; and 3) occluded, resembling the fragmented condition, except with corners occluded by opaque squares. In younger observers, this task is easiest with complete stimuli and most difficult with fragmented. Performance with occluded stimuli resembles that of complete or fragmented, depending on the extent to which the observer amodally completes the rectangle behind the occluders. Specifically, Murray et al. found that the younger adults performed the complete and occluded tasks similarly at stimulus durations longer than ~60 ms. We measured thresholds for each condition at stimulus durations ranging from 15-210 ms, determining the aspect ratio that led to 70% correct. Based on initial results from 10 participants, shape discrimination is impaired for older (M=69 years) vs younger (M=23 years) adults. At the shortest durations, older observers require larger aspect ratios than younger subjects to discriminate even complete shapes accurately, and fail to reach 100% accuracy even with large aspect ratios. Performance is similar across age groups for complete shapes at longer durations. Critically, our data suggest that older adults require more time than younger adults to amodally complete occluded objects (>100 ms vs ~60 ms). We currently are investigating the result further with a larger group of subjects, to determine the time for completion in older observers more precisely. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207