Adults’ Selective Attention and Eye Movements as a Function of Birth Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective attention filters available environmental information for which is further processed and the subject of subsequent cognitive or behavioral action. Spatial cueing studies, designed to measure the allocation of selective attention, have shown that adults produce saccadic eye movements with shorter latencies when they are cued indicating facilitation of attentional selection (Adler, Bala, & Krauzlis, 2002). A recent study with 3-month-old infants’ has shown that their saccadic latencies in a similar spatial cueing task are sensitive to prior birth experience (Adler & Wong-Kee-You, 2015), with caesarean section delivered infants exhibiting slower latencies to localize the cued target than those born vaginally. The present study addressed whether the attentional effect of birth experience observed in infants was transient or more permanent. To this end, a peripheral cue was either presented or not at one of two possible locations 5.5° to the left or right of center for 150 msec, followed randomly between 500 to 1000 msec later by either a target at the cued location or a target and distractor for 1500 msec. Results indicated that adults delivered by caesarean section and vaginally exhibited the same overall pattern of saccadic performance across cueing conditions. Similar to infants, however, caesarean section delivered adults had slower latencies than those delivered vaginally. One possible explanation is that the caesarean section impacts bottom-up attention, requiring an over-reliance on the top-down system. Consistent with this possibility, caesarean section delivered adults also exhibit more incorrect anticipatory saccades than vaginally delivered adults. Neurally, the birth process is thought to lower serotonin levels leading to differentiation of the somatosensory cortex (Toda et al., 2013) – a cascade that might not occur during caesarean section. In sum, the findings indicate that the development of attentional mechanisms is not static, as generally proposed, but influenced by early experiences that persist into adulthood.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".