Effect of Visual Field Location on Global Motion Perception: A Developmental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that motion perception in school-age children is similar to that of adults for fast speeds but is immature at slow speeds for stimuli presented in the central visual field. This study examined whether visual field location affects this developmental pattern. We measured left/right and up/down global motion direction discrimination for fast and slow speeds in 7- to 10-year-old children and in adults with stimuli presented to upper, central, or lower visual fields. For left/right direction discrimination, children showed significantly higher (worse) coherence thresholds than adults for slow, but not fast, speeds in the central visual field. In the upper and lower visual fields, children showed significantly higher coherence thresholds than adults for both speeds. For up/down direction discrimination, children showed similar performance to adults for the central visual field. In the upper and lower visual fields, children performed significantly worse than adults; this finding was speed-tuned only for the lower visual field. Thus, children show immature global motion perception in the periphery even when performance in central vision is adult-like. These results enrich our understanding of motion perception development in children with typical vision.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".