MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740044960

On the role of eye movements in encoding spatial information

2014· article· en· W2740044960 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo Martin, Anthony Tapper, Dave A Gonzalez, Éric Roy, Ewa Niechwiej‐Szwedo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movementSaccadic maskingMicrosaccadeCovertPsychologyEye trackingWorking memoryFixation (population genetics)Cognitive psychologyEncoding (memory)MemorizationRecallVisual searchCognitionComputer scienceComputer visionNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping the world requires visuospatial working memory (VSWM), which facilities the encoding of objects' features and location. Attention is a mechanism guiding the selection process of behaviourally relevant information which is encoded VSWM. Two mechanisms have been proposed for deploying attention: overt and covert. The overt attentional mechanism is mediated via saccadic eye movements, whereas the covert attentional mechanism could be deployed without saccades. However, a few recent studies have suggested that covert attention might be associated with microsaccades. The main goal of our study was to examine the role of eye movements in encoding of spatial information. Our hypothesis is that encoding visuospatial information will be facilitated by saccadic eye movements. A well-established neuropsychological test, the Corsi Block Task, was employed to investigate the role of eye movements in encoding of spatial information. Sixteen healthy participants were tested (8 females & 8 males; age=22±1.3 years). Participants were instructed to memorize the location and order of targets (number of targets ranged between 2 and 8) presented on a computer screen. Targets were presented in 2 experimental conditions: 1)FIX- participants fixated on a central fixation cross, and 2)MOVE- participants moved their eyes to each target. Visuospatial working memory was assessed by asking participants to move a mouse curser to each remembered target during the recall phase. Eye tracker was used to record eye position during the task. Eye movement analysis has been conducted on 4 participants thus far. Our preliminary results demonstrated no significant difference between the experimental conditions. The overall error rate for target recall was 20% in both FIX and MOVE conditions. Microsaccades were found in 24% of trials during the acquisition phase in the FIX condition, and the majority of these trials (21%) were recalled correctly. Thus, microsaccades might play a role in encoding of spatial location

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207