Adaptive Gaze Strategies to Reduce Environmental Uncertainty During a Sequential Visuomotor Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People must decide where, when, and for how long to allocate gaze to perform different motor behaviours. However, the factors guiding gaze during these ongoing, natural behaviours are poorly understood. Gaze shifts help acquire information, suggesting that people should direct gaze to locations where environmental details most relevant to the task are uncertain. To explore this, human subjects stepped on a series of targets as they walked. We used different levels of target uncertainty, and through instruction, altered the importance of (or subjective value assigned to) foot-placement accuracy. Gaze time on targets increased with greater target uncertainty when precise foot placement was more important, and these longer gaze times associated with reduced foot-placement error. Gaze times as well as the gaze shifts to and from targets relative to stepping differed depending on the target's position in the sequence and uncertainty level. Overall, we show that gaze is allocated to reduce uncertainty about target locations, and this depends on the value of this information gain for successful task performance. Furthermore, we show that the spatial-temporal pattern of gaze to resolve uncertainty changes with the evolution of the motor behaviour, indicating a flexible strategy to plan and control movement.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".