Effect of age and stereopsis on a multiple-object tracking task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D vision develops during childhood and tends to diminish after 65 years of age. It is still relatively unknown how stereopsis is used in more complex/ecological contexts such as when walking about in crowds where objects are in motion and occlusions occur. One task that shares characteristics with the requirements for processing dynamic crowds is the multiple object-tracking task (MOT). In the present study we evaluated the impact of stereopsis on a MOT task as a function of age. A total of 60 observers consisting of three groups of 20 subjects (7-12 years old, 18-40 years old and 65 years and older) completed the task in both conditions (with and without stereoscopic effects). The adult group obtained the better scores, followed by the children and the older adult group. The performance difference between the stereoscopic and non-stereoscopic conditions was significant and similar for the adults and the children but was non significant for the older observers. These results show that stereopsis helps children and adults accomplish a MOT task, but has no impact on older adults' performances. The present results have implications as to how populations differ in their efficiency of using stereoscopic cues for disambiguating complex dynamic scenes.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".