Recurrence quantification analysis of eye movements during mental imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies demonstrated similarities of eye fixations during mental imagery and visual perception but-to our knowledge-the temporal characteristics of eye movements during imagery have not yet been considered in detail. To fill this gap, the same data is analyzed with conventional spatial techniques such as analysis of areas of interest (AOI), ScanMatch, and MultiMatch and with recurrence quantification analysis (RQA), a new way of analyzing gaze data by tracking re-fixations and their temporal dynamics. Participants viewed and afterwards imagined three different kinds of pictures (art, faces, and landscapes) while their eye movements were recorded. While fixation locations during imagery were related to those during perception, participants returned more often to areas they had previously looked at during imagery and their scan paths were more clustered and more repetitive when compared to visual perception. Furthermore, refixations of the same area occurred sooner after initial fixation during mental imagery. The results highlight not only content-driven spatial similarities between imagery and perception but also shed light on the processes of mental imagery maintenance and interindividual differences in these processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".