Stimulus exposure and gaze bias in visual decision tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Glaholt & Reingold (in press) reported biases in looking behavior during eight-alternative forced-choice (8-AFC) decision tasks. We found that throughout the entire decision period, dwell duration (where a dwell is a run of consecutive fixations on an item) is longer on the chosen item than on not-chosen items. In the current study we investigated the ways in which this dwell duration bias depends on stimulus exposure. Eye movements were recorded while participants selected from a display of eight photographs the photo that they preferred the most, or the photo that was the most unusual (control task). In Experiment 1, we manipulated stimulus exposure by pre-exposing four of the eight photos, for one second each, prior to each 8-AFC decision. In Experiment 2, stimulus exposure was manipulated within-trial using a gaze-contingent methodology that limited viewing time during each dwell to either 200 ms or 400 ms. Experiment 1 revealed a larger dwell duration bias for items that were not pre-exposed compared to items that were, which suggests that the bias involves the selective encoding of task-relevant information. In Experiment 2 we found that a dwell duration bias is present even when stimulus exposure is equated between the chosen and not-chosen items, indicating that post-perceptual factors also contribute to the bias. In addition, we examined the component fixations within each dwell and discovered that the bias in dwell duration is the result of both an increase in the number of fixations per dwell as well as a lengthening of individual fixation durations. A similar pattern of results was present in both the preference and control tasks. Implications of the present findings are discussed in the context of the Gaze Cascade model of preference decision making (Shimojo, Simion, Scheier & Shimojo, 2003).
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".