Image preference biases on manual and oculomotor tasks in preliterate children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudoneglect is a leftward spatial bias that is observed in neurotypical people, or people with no known brain damage (Bowers & Heilman, 1980). Line bisection tasks are commonly used to investigate this phenomenon that involve participants marking where they perceive the midpoint to be on a horizontal line. Consistently, neurotypical participants will err to the left of centre on these tasks. Several factors contribute to the extent to which pseudoneglect is experienced including handedness, gender, age, and native reading direction (for a review, see Jewell & McCourt, 2000). Native reading direction been observed to be extremely influential in the direction and severity of spatial biases, with left-to-right reader erring to the left and right-to-left readers erring to right (Faghihi et al., 2019). The majority of studies examining pseudoneglect have included only adult participants or a mix of both child and adult participants. The present study examined this lateral spatial bias in children who have not yet learned to read. Twenty-nine four and five-year-old children completed a task in which they placed felt cut-out images onto felt boards, as well as a forced-choice mirrored image task. Each task was coded and scored for lateral preferences. Children displayed a strong leftward bias for figure placement (p = .007) on the felt board task and a non-significant rightward weighted image preference on the forced choice paradigm. The predicted leftward bias on the felt board task and the unpredicted pattern of directionality between the two tasks is discussed in terms of oculomotor and manual/motor mechanisms and right hemisphere activation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".