MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2753158571 · doi:10.1167/17.10.435

The effect of stimulus area on global motion thresholds in children and adults

2017· article· en· W2753158571 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Meier, Farnaz Javadian, Kevin Chang, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PerceptionAudiologyPsychologyMotion perceptionCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Coherence thresholds on a global motion task vary as a function of spatial and temporal stimulus parameters. This is of particular interest when studying visual development, because these parameters can have a larger impact on the performance of young children compared to adults. For example, children perform better when presented with a denser dot array while adult performance is unaffected (Narasimhan & Giaschi, 2012). We have shown that coherence thresholds for global motion direction discrimination are immature in 4-6 year olds when smaller spatial displacement (∆x) values are used to create stimulus motion, but adult-like when larger values are used (Meier & Giaschi, 2014). The current study was designed to investigate whether the apparent immaturity in motion perception for small displacements is due to immaturity in spatial integration mechanisms. To this end, we assessed the effect of stimulus area on global motion coherence thresholds in young children. Methods: Coherence thresholds were assessed in children (4.5 – 6.5 years, M = 5.5) and adults (18.6 – 29.9 years, M = 21.3) using a two-alternative forced choice direction discrimination task with a staircase paradigm. Nine conditions were assessed: spatial displacement was 1, 5, or 30 arcmin; stimulus area was 9, 36, or 82 deg2. Participants were assessed monocularly, and conducted one staircase per condition, for a total of 9 measurements. For each participant, we calculated the change in coherence threshold as a function of stimulus area at each spatial displacement. Results: There was a significant effect of spatial displacement, such that an increase in coherence threshold with decreasing area was present for large displacements (∆x = 30 arcmin) only. There was no effect of age group, and no age group by displacement interaction. Conclusion: Immaturities in global motion perception are unlikely to be accounted for by limitations in spatial integration area. 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→