MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172201717 · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557086

Pupil responses during discrete goal-directed movements

2014· article· en· W2172201717 on OpenAlexaff
Xianta Jiang, M. Stella Atkins, Geoffrey Tien, Roman Bednarik, Bin Zheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPupilPupillary responseTask (project management)Pupil sizePupil diameterComputer sciencePupillometryTask analysisCognitionCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionPsychologyEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pupil size is known to correlate with the changes of cognitive task workloads, but how the pupil responds to requirements of basic goal-directed motor tasks involved in human-machine interactions is not yet clear. This work conducted a user study to investigate the pupil dilations during aiming in a tele-operation setting, with the purpose of better understanding how the changes in task requirements are reflected by the changes of pupil size. The task requirements, managed by Fitts' index of difficulty (ID), i.e. the size and distance apart of the targets, were varied between tasks, and pupil responses to different task IDs were recorded. The results showed that pupil diameter can be employed as an indicator of task requirements in goal-directed movements-higher task difficulty evoked higher valley to peak pupil dilation, and the peak pupil dilation occurred after a longer delay. These findings contribute to the foundation for developing methods to objectively evaluate interactive task requirements using pupil parameters during goal-directed movements in HCI.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207