MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571067231 · doi:10.1177/1541931215591043

Pupil Dilation and Eye Movements Can Reveal Upcoming Choice in Dynamic Decision-Making

2015· article· en· W2571067231 on OpenAlexaff
Vsevolod Peysakhovich, François Vachon, Benoît R. Vallières, Frédéric Dehais, Sébastien Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPupillary responseDynamic decision-makingComputer scienceOperator (biology)Eye movementEye trackingFixation (population genetics)Decision support systemOptimal decisionSituation awarenessHuman–computer interactionCognitionOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligencePupilDecision treeEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In dynamic environments such as air-traffic control, emergency response and security surveillance, there are severe constraints to information processing and decision-making. Human operators must constantly monitor, assess, and integrate incoming information in order to make optimal decisions in such complex environments. In order to maximize operators’ performance, there is a need for effective technological support for dynamic decision-making. Eye tracking is one promising avenue that can provide online, non-obtrusive indices of cognitive functioning. Using a simulated maritime decision-making environment, we evaluated whether oculometry may be exploited to foretell the decision made by the operator beforehand. Our results showed that pupil dilation and fixation transitions can reveal the upcoming judgment of the human operator by about half a second before the decision. This finding can be useful to design adaptive support tools for dynamic decision-making by integrating the operator’s cognitive state.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207