Eye movement pattern in face recognition is associated with cognitive decline in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the relationship between eye\nmovement pattern in face recognition and cognitive performance\nduring natural aging through modeling and comparing\neye movement of young (18-24 years) and older (65-81 years)\nadults using Hidden Markov Model (HMM) based approach.\nYoung adults recognized faces better than older adults, particularly\nwhen measured by the false alarm rate. Older adults’\nrecognition performance, on the other hand, correlated with\ntheir cognitive status assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment\n(MoCA). Eye movement analysis with HMM revealed\ntwo different strategies, namely “analytic” and “holistic”.\nParticipants using the analytic strategy had better recognition\nperformance (particularly in the false alarm rate) than\nthose using the holistic strategy. Significantly more young\nadults adopted the analytic strategy; whereas more older\nadults adopted the holistic strategy. Interestingly, older adults\nwith lower cognitive status were associated with higher likelihood\nof using the holistic strategy. These results suggest an\nassociation between holistic eye movement patterns and cognitive\ndecline in the elderly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".