Reactive and anticipatory looking in 6-month-old infants during a visual expectation paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents data from 278 six-month-old infants who completed a visual expectation paradigm in which audiovisual stimuli were first presented randomly (random phase), and then in a spatial pattern (pattern phase). Infants' eye gaze behaviour was tracked with a 60 Hz Tobii eye-tracker in order to measure two types of looking behaviour: reactive looking (i.e., latency to shift eye gaze in reaction to the appearance of stimuli) and anticipatory looking (i.e., percentage of time spent looking at the location where the next stimulus is about to appear during the inter-stimulus interval). Data pertaining to missing data and task order effects are presented. Further analyses show that infants' reactive looking was faster in the pattern phase, compared to the random phase, and their anticipatory looking increased from random to pattern phases. Within the pattern phase, infants' reactive looking showed a quadratic trend, with reactive looking time latencies peaking in the middle portion of the phase. Similarly, within the pattern phase, infants' anticipatory looking also showed a quadratic trend, with anticipatory looking peaking during the middle portion of the phase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".