Saccadic Latency Differences Between C-Section and Vaginally-Delivered Infants and Adults in a Visual Search Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search asymmetry occurs when an efficient search is exhibited for feature-present targets, but an inefficient search is exhibited for feature-absent targets. Both 3-month-old infants and adults have been found to display a search asymmetry when assessed with saccade latencies (Adler & Gallego, 2014) Additionally, C-section delivered infants exhibit slower attention and saccadic latencies than those born vaginally in an attentional cueing paradigm, implicating a detriment to bottom-up attention (Adler & Wong-Kee-You, 2015). This study was designed to confirm the relative effects of different birth experiences on attention with a different attentional task, namely, search asymmetry, and whether any differences persist to adulthood. Two visual circular arrays were presented: feature-present target among feature-absent distractors (R among Ps) or feature-absent target among feature-present distractors (P among Rs) with array set sizes of 1, 3, 5, 8. Results indicated that infants’ and adults’ saccadic latencies to feature-present targets were unaffected by set size and C-section infants and adults both had slower saccadic latencies when compared to vaginal groups. Interestingly, infants born via emergency C-section were faster when compared to a planned C-section but not different from vaginal infants. There were no differences, however, in saccadic latencies between emergency and planned C-section adults. For feature-absent targets, both infants and adults exhibited increasing saccadic latencies with set size. Further, both infants and adults across all types of birth experiences exhibited equivalent saccadic latencies. These findings further suggest that C-section birth influences bottom-up attention even into adulthood. The discrepancy between the relative difference between planned and emergency C-sections in infants compared to adults suggests that multiple mechanisms, birth process versus bacterial baptism, are likely responsible for differential pattern across ages. Regardless, this study demonstrates that the development of attentional mechanisms can be influenced by early birth experiences and that this birth impact persists into adulthood.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".