The Development of Sensitivity to the Direction of Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Last year (VSS 2011), we reported that, under most conditions, sensitivity to differences in direction of motion improves dramatically between 5 and 7 years of age, with a smaller improvement between age 7 and adulthood. This was true for smaller dots (diameter = 2.5 arcmin) moving relatively slowly (4.16º/s) or quickly (8.65º/s) and for larger dots (diameter = 10 arcmin) moving quickly. Surprisingly, adults performed poorly when the larger dots moved slowly—their minimum discriminable deviation from vertical (10.3º) was worse than that of 7-year-olds (4.7º) and no better than that of 5-year-olds (10.4º). We speculated that this poor performance in adults, but not 7-year-olds, might be related to the onset of inhibitory mechanisms after age 7 (e.g., Tadin et al., 2003). To estimate when these inhibitory mechanisms might become adult-like, we are using the same procedure with older children. As before, observers indicated on each 1s trial whether the dots moved to the left or right of a vertical reference line. We used a 3-down, 1-up staircase to measure the minimum deviation discriminated from vertical for the smaller and larger dots moving at the slower or faster speed. Sensitivity was adult-like in three of four conditions by 9 years of age (n = 20/grp; ps > 0.05). However, for the large (10 arcmin) slowly moving (4.16º/s) dots, 9-year-olds (2.8º) were significantly better than both 7-year-olds and adults (ps <0.01). Preliminary results from seven 12-year-olds and ten 15-year-olds show that thresholds begin to increase toward adult values after age 12. However, even at age 15, thresholds for the large, slow dots are still ~2.5 times better (4.2°) than those of adults (10.4°). The results suggest that inhibitory mechanisms that limit adults’ performance for large, slowly moving stimuli may continue to mature throughout the teenage years. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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".