Peripheral guidance in scenes: The interaction of scene context and object content.
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
In the present study, we examined how gaze guidance is affected by immediately available information in the periphery and investigated how search strategies differed across manipulations in the availability of scene context and object content information. Across 3 experiments, participants performed a visual search task in scenes while using a gaze-contingent moving-window paradigm. Extrafoveal information was manipulated across conditions to examine the contributions of object content, scene context, or some combination of the two. Experiment 1 demonstrated a possible interaction between scene context and object content information in improving guidance. Experiments 2 and 3 supported the notion that object content is selected for further scrutiny based on its position within scene context. These results suggest a prioritization of object information based on scene context, such that contextual information acts as a framework in the selection of relevant regions, and object information can then affect which specific locations in those regions are selected for further examination.
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 | 0.000 | 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