Evidence for top-down control of eye movements during visual decision making
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
Participants' eye movements were monitored while they viewed displays containing 6 exemplars from one of several categories of everyday items (belts, sunglasses, shirts, shoes), with a column of 3 items presented on the left and another column of 3 items presented on the right side of the display. Participants were either required to choose which of the two sets of 3 items was the most expensive (2-AFC) or which of the 6 items was the most expensive (6-AFC). Importantly, the stimulus display, and the relevant stimulus dimension, were held constant across conditions. Consistent with the hypothesis of top-down control of eye movements during visual decision making, we documented greater selectivity in the processing of stimulus information in the 6-AFC than the 2-AFC decision. In addition, strong spatial biases in looking behavior were demonstrated, but these biases were largely insensitive to the instructional manipulation, and did not substantially influence participants' choices.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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