Eye Movements When Observing Predictable and Unpredictable Actions
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
We previously showed that, when observers watch an actor performing a predictable block-stacking task, the coordination between the observer's gaze and the actor's hand is similar to the coordination between the actor's gaze and hand. Both the observer and the actor direct gaze to forthcoming grasp and block landing sites and shift their gaze to the next grasp or landing site at around the time the hand contacts the block or the block contacts the landing site. Here we compare observers' gaze behavior in a block manipulation task when the observers did and when they did not know, in advance, which of two blocks the actor would pick up first. In both cases, observers managed to fixate the target ahead of the actor's hand and showed proactive gaze behavior. However, these target fixations occurred later, relative to the actor's movement, when observers did not know the target block in advance. In perceptual tests, in which observers watched animations of the actor reaching partway to the target and had to guess which block was the target, we found that the time at which observers were able to correctly do so was very similar to the time at which they would make saccades to the target block. Overall, our results indicate that observers use gaze in a fashion that is appropriate for hand movement planning and control. This in turn suggests that they implement representations of the manual actions required in the task and representations that direct task-specific eye movements.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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