Attention to text in video predicts young children's orthographic knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study examined preschool-aged children's attention to text in video, and whether it may be related to their developing orthographic knowledge. SAMPLE 1: Study 1 showed 66 children videos that included text. Method Children's attention to the video was measured using eye-tracking, and their recognition of orthographic patterns within the video was tested after viewing. Results During viewing, children attended to the text 6% of the time it was available. However, children who both had pre-existing letter knowledge and attended to the text in the video were able to identify the written words. SAMPLE 2: A second study extended these findings to a younger age group (n = 59). METHOD: In Study 2, we also showed children an unrelated storybook that incorporated the target words from the videos and measured attention to that storybook. RESULTS: Results again showed little attention to text, but some recognition of written words for those who did attend. Study 2 also showed that children who recognized the written words from the video attended more to those words in a different context. CONCLUSION: Overall results suggest a relationship between letter knowledge, attention and developing orthographic knowledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".