The obligatory effects of memory on eye movements
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
Previous work has shown that eye movement behaviour is affected by previous experience, such that alterations in viewing patterns can be observed to previously viewed compared to novel displays. The current work addresses the extent to which such effects of memory on eye movement behaviour are obligatory; that is, we examined whether prior experience could alter subsequent eye movement behaviour under a variety of testing conditions, for stimuli that varied on the nature of the prior exposure. While task demands influenced whether viewing was predominantly directed to the novel versus familiar faces, viewing of the familiar faces was distinguished from viewing of the novel faces, regardless of whether the task required incidental encoding or intentional retrieval. Changes in scanning of previously viewed over novel faces emerged early in viewing; in particular, viewing duration of the first fixation to the familiar faces was often significantly different from the duration of the first fixation directed to the novel faces, regardless of whether prior exposure was solely in the context of the experiment or due to real-world exposure. These findings suggest that representations maintained in memory may be retrieved and compared with presented information obligatorily.
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) | 0.000 | 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