Reduced perception-action dissociation in children with amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional distinction between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action is a key aspect of understanding the primate visual system. While this dissociation has been well-established in adulthood, its development and dependence on typical visual experience remain unclear. To address these questions, we examined two groups of children: typically developed children and those with amblyopia, who presumably have a sub-optimal visual experience. The Ponzo illusion, known to impact perception but not visuomotor behaviors across age groups, was employed to assess the extent of dissociation. Participants engaged in two tasks involving the Ponzo illusion: a grasping task (vision-for-action) and a manual estimation task (vision-for-perception), with objects placed on the "close" and "far" surfaces of the illusion. Typically developed children displayed grasping movements that were unaffected by the illusion, as their grasping apertures were scaled based on object size, independent of its location. In contrast, children with amblyopia exhibited a clear susceptibility to the illusion, showing larger apertures for objects placed on the "far" surface of the illusion. Interestingly, both groups of children demonstrated similar susceptibility to the illusion during the perceptual task, with objects placed on the far surface being perceived as longer. These findings shed light on the impact of atypical visual development on the emergence of the dissociation between perception and action, highlighting the crucial role of typical visual experience in establishing this distinction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".