Development of human visual cortical function: A scoping review of task- and naturalistic-fMRI studies through the interactive specialization and maturational frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overarching theories such as the interactive specialization and maturational frameworks have been proposed to describe human functional brain development. However, these frameworks have not yet been systematically examined across the fMRI literature. Visual processing is one of the most well-studied fields in neuroimaging, and research in this area has recently expanded to include naturalistic paradigms that facilitate study in younger age ranges, allowing for an in-depth critical appraisal of these frameworks across childhood. To this end, we conducted a scoping review of 94 developmental visual fMRI studies, including both traditional experimental task and naturalistic studies, across multiple sub-domains (early visual processing, category-specific higher order processing, naturalistic visual processing). We found that across domains, many studies reported progressive development, but few studies describe regressive or emergent changes necessary to fit the maturational or interactive specialization frameworks. Our findings suggest a need for the expansion of developmental frameworks and clearer reporting of both progressive and regressive changes, along with well-powered, longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".