MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386247391 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5649

Speed of Information Processing in Infants and Adults: Age Differences in Saccadic Reaction Time Sensitivity

2023· article· en· W4386247391 on OpenAlexaff
Scott A. Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadic maskingPsychologyEye movementAudiologyStimulus (psychology)Fixation (population genetics)CognitionSaccadeSaccadic eye movementCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Speed of information processing (SIP) is an important factor for cognitive development. Determining the developmental trajectory of SIP has been difficult due to a lack of continuity in the paradigms comparing adults’ and infants’ SIP nor continuity in the stimulus feature set (spatial vs content) of uncertainty. Further, for spatial uncertainty, although adults’ manual RTs have been shown to increase linearly with increasing choices, their saccadic RTs seem to not. Seven-month-old infants’ saccadic RTs, in contrast, have been shown to increase with more target choices as expected (Dougherty & Haith, 1997). What is the developmental course from infancy that enables this discrepancy in saccadic RTs that increase with uncertainty at 7 months but not in adults? Method: To address this question, the present study used the same eye movement paradigm across ages as a means to bridge the discontinuities and assess the developmental discrepancy. Adults’ and 5- and 9-month-old infants’ reactive saccades were measured across 100 trials in a comparable choice reaction time task. Participants had to make an eye movement, starting from a central fixation, to a target at one of a possible 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 spatial locations arranged as a circular array. Results: Both 5- and 9-month-olds’ saccadic RTs increased linearly with more choice alternatives (i.e. more uncertainty), but 9-month-olds’ increased at a shallower rate, approaching adults’ saccadic RT function which did not exhibit an increase with more choices. Conclusion: Findings revealed that there exists a developmental trend in saccadic RTs for spatially-defined SIP, in that as infants age, saccadic responses become less sensitive to spatial uncertainty, and approach adult-like performance. Decreasing saccade sensitivity may be due to developmental changes in the influence of response selection or in the functioning of inhibitory mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207