Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.882
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.193
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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 | 0.000 | 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Human eye-tracking studies have shown that gaze fixations are biased toward the center of natural scene stimuli ("center bias"). This bias contaminates the evaluation of computational models of attention and oculomotor behavior. Here we recorded eye movements from 17 participants watching 40 MTV-style video clips (with abrupt scene changes every 2-4 s), to quantify the relative contributions of five causes of center bias: photographer bias, motor bias, viewing strategy, orbital reserve, and screen center. Photographer bias was evaluated by five naive human raters and correlated with eye movements. The frequently changing scenes in MTV-style videos allowed us to assess how motor bias and viewing strategy affected center bias across time. In an additional experiment with 5 participants, videos were displayed at different locations within a large screen to investigate the influences of orbital reserve and screen center. Our results demonstrate quantitatively for the first time that center bias is correlated strongly with photographer bias and is influenced by viewing strategy at scene onset, while orbital reserve, screen center, and motor bias contribute minimally. We discuss methods to account for these influences to better assess computational models of visual attention and gaze using natural scene stimuli.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Topic
- Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Field
- Computer Science
- Canadian institutions
- Queen's University
- Funders
- National Geospatial-Intelligence AgencyNational Science Foundation
- Keywords
- GazeEye movementEye trackingComputer visionCenter (category theory)Attentional biasComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscience
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes