Optimal and Preferred Eye Landing Positions in Objects and Scenes
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
Viewing position effects are commonly observed in reading, but they have only rarely been investigated in object perception or in the realistic context of a natural scene. In two experiments, we explored where people fixate within photorealistic objects and the effects of this landing position on recognition and subsequent eye movements. The results demonstrate an optimal viewing position-objects are processed more quickly when fixation is in the centre of the object. Viewers also prefer to saccade to the centre of objects within a natural scene, even when making a large saccade. A central landing position is associated with an increased likelihood of making a refixation, a result that differs from previous reports and suggests that multiple fixations within objects, within scenes, occur for a range of reasons. These results suggest that eye movements within scenes are systematic and are made with reference to an early parsing of the scene into constituent objects.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it