Eye movements reveal epistemic curiosity in human observers
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".