Eye movements reveal epistemic curiosity in human observers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saccadic (rapid) eye movements are primary means by which humans and non-human primates sample visual information. However, while saccadic decisions are intensively investigated in instrumental contexts where saccades guide subsequent actions, it is largely unknown how they may be influenced by curiosity - the intrinsic desire to learn. While saccades are sensitive to visual novelty and visual surprise, no study has examined their relation to epistemic curiosity - interest in symbolic, semantic information. To investigate this question, we tracked the eye movements of human observers while they read trivia questions and, after a brief delay, were visually given the answer. We show that higher curiosity was associated with earlier anticipatory orienting of gaze toward the answer location without changes in other metrics of saccades or fixations, and that these influences were distinct from those produced by variations in confidence and surprise. Across subjects, the enhancement of anticipatory gaze was correlated with measures of trait curiosity from personality questionnaires. Finally, a machine learning algorithm could predict curiosity in a cross-subject manner, relying primarily on statistical features of the gaze position before the answer onset and independently of covariations in confidence or surprise, suggesting potential practical applications for educational technologies, recommender systems and research in cognitive sciences. With this article, we provide full access to the annotated database allowing readers to reproduce the results. Epistemic curiosity produces specific effects on oculomotor anticipation that can be used to read out curiosity states.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it