Is Spatial Attention-Modulated Surround Suppression Observed Across Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that there is a suppressive surround for any given spatial location of attentional focus in which information is inhibited (e.g., Hopf et al., 2006). Though several studies have provided psychophysical (e.g., Cutzu & Tsotsos, 2003) and neural evidence of this effect in adults (e.g., Boehler et al., 2009), whether this phenomenon is also observed earlier in development is unknown. To examine this, adults, adolescents and school-age children were tested on a two-alternative forced choice visual task, in which their accuracy in discriminating between two target letters (Ls and Ts) was measured. A spatial cue guided attention to the upcoming location of one of the target letters. Following the cue, a visual array consisting of 6 randomly oriented Ls and 6 randomly oriented Ts, arranged inon a circle grid centered on a central fixation point was displayed. The distance between the two target letters varied among six values of inter-target separation distances. Results have indicated that, as would be predicted for adults, accuracy increased linearly as the inter-target separation distance increased, suggesting that visual processing is suppressed in the immediate vicinity of an attended location. Adolescents showed a similar pattern but greater accuracy increases were observed for the larger inter-target separation distances. Further, adolescents' accuracy did not increase as gradually and linearly as with adults. Finally, school-aged children did not exhibit accuracy differences across inter-target separation distances. Thus, there were clear developmental differences in visual discrimination accuracy and the impact of surround suppression. These findings, therefore, seem to show a clear developmental trend in the efficacy of top-down processing and related attentional mechanisms, and their impact on perceptual processing and discrimination. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".