Observing eye movements and the influence of cognition during a symbol search task: a comparison across three age groups
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
This study examined eye movements during a visual search task as well as cognitive abilities within three age groups. The aim was to explore scanning patterns across symbol grids and to better understand the impact of symbol location in AAC displays on speed and accuracy of symbol selection. For the study, 60 students were asked to locate a series of symbols on 16 cell grids. The EyeLink 1000 was used to measure eye movements, accuracy, and response time. Accuracy was high across all cells. Participants had faster response times, longer fixations, and more frequent fixations on symbols located in the middle of the grid. Group comparisons revealed significant differences for accuracy and reaction times. The Leiter-R was used to evaluate cognitive abilities. Sustained attention and cognitive flexibility scores predicted the participants' reaction time and accuracy in symbol selection. Findings suggest that symbol location within AAC devices and individuals' cognitive abilities influence the speed and accuracy of retrieving symbols.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it