Using synchronized eye and motion tracking to determine high-precision eye-movement patterns during object-interaction tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the role that vision plays in sequential object interactions. We used a head-mounted eye tracker and upper-limb motion capture to quantify visual behavior while participants performed two standardized functional tasks. By simultaneously recording eye and motion tracking, we precisely segmented participants' visual data using the movement data, yielding a consistent and highly functionally resolved data set of real-world object-interaction tasks. Our results show that participants spend nearly the full duration of a trial fixating on objects relevant to the task, little time fixating on their own hand when reaching toward an object, and slightly more time-although still very little-fixating on the object in their hand when transporting it. A consistent spatial and temporal pattern of fixations was found across participants. In brief, participants fixate an object to be picked up at least half a second before their hand arrives at the object and stay fixated on the object until they begin to transport it, at which point they shift their fixation directly to the drop-off location of the object, where they stay fixated until the object is successfully released. This pattern provides additional evidence of a common system for the integration of vision and object interaction in humans, and is consistent with theoretical frameworks hypothesizing the distribution of attention to future action targets as part of eye and hand-movement preparation. Our results thus aid the understanding of visual attention allocation during planning of object interactions both inside and outside the field of view.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".