Selective scanpath repetition during memory-guided visual search
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
Visual search efficiency improves with repetition of a search display, yet the mechanisms behind these processing gains remain unclear. According to Scanpath Theory, memory retrieval is mediated by repetition of the pattern of eye movements or "scanpath" elicited during stimulus encoding. Using this framework, we tested the prediction that scanpath recapitulation reflects relational memory guidance during repeated search events. Younger and older subjects were instructed to find changing targets within flickering naturalistic scenes. Search efficiency (search time, number of fixations, fixation duration) and scanpath similarity (repetition) were compared across age groups for novel (V1) and repeated (V2) search events. Younger adults outperformed older adults on all efficiency measures at both V1 and V2, while the search time benefit for repeated viewing (V1-V2) did not differ by age. Fixation-binned scanpath similarity analyses revealed repetition of initial and final (but not middle) V1 fixations at V2, with older adults repeating more initial V1 fixations than young adults. In young adults only, early scanpath similarity correlated negatively with search time at test, indicating increased efficiency, whereas the similarity of V2 fixations to middle V1 fixations predicted poor search performance. We conclude that scanpath compression mediates increased search efficiency by selectively recapitulating encoding fixations that provide goal-relevant input. Extending Scanpath Theory, results suggest that scanpath repetition varies as a function of time and memory integrity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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