Search for the Developmental Turning Point in Perceptual-Attentional Processing in the Confusion between Fear and Surprise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project examined viewing times and saccades while participants recognize fear and surprise presented in pairs within groups. Roy-Charland, Perron, Young, Boulard, and Chamberland (2015 Roy-Charland, A., Perron, M., Young, C., Boulard, J., & Chamberland, J. A. (2015). The confusion of fear and surprise: A developmental study of the Perceptual-Attentional Limitation Hypothesis using eye movements. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176(5), 281–298. doi:10.1080/00221325.2015.1066301[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) found that children ages 9–11 were as accurate as adults in recognizing the emotions, and both groups were higher than children ages 3–5. Interestingly, the two groups of children made fewer saccades between the pair of faces and viewed the expressions longer than the adult group. Thus, while accuracy is equal to adults by ages 9–11, visual processing differs. This project added a group of adolescents (14–17) in search of a turning point in visual strategies used in the perceptual-attentional processing of fear and surprise. Results suggest a speed/accuracy tradeoff. In effect, adolescents were as fast as adults, but their accuracy was lower. Furthermore, adolescents made fewer saccades than adults, similar to groups aged 3–5 and 9–11 years old. These results add another piece in the understanding of the developmental trajectory of recognition of facial expressions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".