Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion perception is required for nearly all aspects of daily living. Previous work has shown that the ability to perceive a variety of different types of motion is significantly affected by increasing age. The research described in this thesis further probes the complex effects of aging on motion perception using a number of different stimulus configurations and performance measures. In order to relate psychophysical performance to neurophysiological recordings, we used two different notched-noise masking techniques to estimate the directional selectivity of masking in younger and older adults. We found evidence to suggest that the directionally-selective mechanisms of older adults are more broadly tuned than their younger counterparts, which is consistent with the animal literature that links decreased neural inhibition with broader directional tuning. Behaviourally however, task-specific contrast sensitivity may play a role in explaining that result. We also uncovered a previously unobserved difference between horizontal and vertical motion perception which bears further study. We also tested peripheral motion perception both under focused and divided attentional conditions. Older adults were impaired compared to younger adults when asked to make judgments about motion patterns in the peripheral vision field, but they were not differentially impaired under divided attention conditions. The findings presented in this thesis paint a more complex picture of how increasing age impairs motion perception than previously described. Specifically, our observations show that age effects interact with stimulus contrast, attention, and motion direction, and these interactions each present an interesting avenue for further exploration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.047 | 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".