Predicting Confusion from Eye-Tracking Data with Recurrent Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encouraged by the success of deep learning in a variety of domains, we investigate the suitability and effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) in a domain where deep learning has not yet been used; namely detecting confusion from eye-tracking data. Through experiments with a dataset of user interactions with ValueChart (an interactive visualization tool), we found that RNNs learn a feature representation from the raw data that allows for a more powerful classifier than previous methods that use engineered features. This is evidenced by the stronger performance of the RNN (0.74/0.71 sensitivity/specificity), as compared to a Random Forest classifier (0.51/0.70 sensitivity/specificity), when both are trained on an un-augmented dataset. However, using engineered features allows for simple data augmentation methods to be used. These same methods are not as effective at augmentation for the feature representation learned from the raw data, likely due to an inability to match the temporal dynamics of the data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".