An investigation of perceptual integration across the developmental time-span in typically-developing children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists controversy in the current literature about the specific period of time when the integration of low-level perceptual elements reaches maturity in typically-developing child populations. Visual illusions have been employed in recent research and these studies suggest that perceptual integration in children reaches adult levels anywhere between the ages of 5-10 years. However, given that specific measurement techniques have failed to be controlled for, in an attempt to elucidate the controversy surrounding perceptual development we employed a visual illusion paradigm which comprised of both binary (static) and quantifiable (dynamic) components of commonly used Ebbinghaus illusion perceptual tasks. A total of 72 individuals, including four child groups (4-5, 6-7, 8-9 and 10-11 years) and an adult cohort, participated in the current study. Two main trends were revealed, the influence of age and the influence of comparator circle starting size on size-matching ability. First, 4-5 year olds elicited increased susceptibility to the static task and increased variability in the dynamic task, while 10-11 year olds displayed intermediate levels of susceptibility and variability respectively, compared to other child groups and their adult counterparts. In addition, the dynamic task revealed that when asked to decrease the comparator circle size (rather than increase), all participants overestimated target size. Overall, it is suggested that perceptual development does not follow a linear progression. The adoption of a universally-accepted perceptual measure is required in order to provide a more detailed understanding of perceptual development in children which can then be applied to populations which exhibit perceptual impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".