Gaze Behaviour in Audiovisual Speech Perception: Asymmetrical Distribution of Face-Directed Fixations
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
Speech perception under natural conditions entails integration of auditory and visual information. Understanding how visual and auditory speech information are integrated requires detailed descriptions of the nature and processing of visual speech information. To understand better the process of gathering visual information, we studied the distribution of face-directed fixations of humans performing an audiovisual speech perception task to characterise the degree of asymmetrical viewing and its relationship to speech intelligibility. Participants showed stronger gaze fixation asymmetries while viewing dynamic faces, compared to static faces or face-like objects, especially when gaze was directed to the talkers' eyes. Although speech perception accuracy was significantly enhanced by the viewing of congruent, dynamic faces, we found no correlation between task performance and gaze fixation asymmetry. Most participants preferentially fixated the right side of the faces and their preferences persisted while viewing horizontally mirrored stimuli, different talkers, or static faces. These results suggest that the asymmetrical distributions of gaze fixations reflect the participants' viewing preferences, rather than being a product of asymmetrical faces, but that this behavioural bias does not predict correct audiovisual speech perception.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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