Classification of Attentional Tunneling Through Behavioral Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a machine learning classifier to infer attentional tunneling through behavioral indices. This research serves as a proof of concept for a method for inferring operator state to trigger adaptations to user interfaces. BACKGROUND: Adaptive user interfaces adapt their information content or configuration to changes in operating context. Operator attentional states represent a promising class of triggers for these adaptations. Behavioral indices may be a viable alternative to physiological correlates for triggering interface adaptations based on attentional state. METHOD: A visual search task sought to induce attentional tunneling in participants. We analyzed user interaction under tunnel and non-tunnel conditions to determine whether the paradigm was successful. We then examined the performance trade-offs stemming from attentional tunnels. Finally, we developed a machine learning classifier to identify patterns of interaction characteristics associated with attentional tunnels. RESULTS: The experimental paradigm successfully induced attentional tunnels. Attentional tunnels were shown to improve performance when information appeared within them, but to hinder performance when it appeared outside. Participants were found to be more tunneled in their second tunnel trial relative to their first. Our classifier achieved a classification accuracy similar to comparable studies (area under curve = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Behavioral indices can be used to infer attentional tunneling. There is a performance trade-off from attentional tunneling, suggesting the opportunity for adaptive systems. APPLICATION: This research applies to adaptive automation aimed at managing operator attention in information-dense work domains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".