Different luminance- and texture-defined contrast sensitivity profiles for school-aged children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our current understanding of how the visual brain develops is based largely on the study of luminance-defined information processing. This approach, however, is somewhat limiting, since everyday scenes are composed of complex images, consisting of information characterized by physical attributes relating to both luminance and texture. Few studies have explored how contrast sensitivity to texture-defined information develops, particularly throughout the school-aged years. The current study investigated how contrast sensitivity to luminance- (luminance-modulated noise) and texture-defined (contrast-modulated noise) static gratings develops in school-aged children. Contrast sensitivity functions identified distinct profiles for luminance- and texture-defined gratings across spatial frequencies (SFs) and age. Sensitivity to luminance-defined gratings reached maturity in childhood by the ages of 9-10 years for all SFs (0.5, 1, 2, 4 and 8 cycles/degree or cpd). Sensitivity to texture-defined gratings reached maturity at 5-6 years for low SFs and 7-8 years for high SFs (i.e., 4 cpd). These results establish that the processing of luminance- and texture-defined information develop differently as a function of SF and age.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it