MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tracking eye movements to uncover the nature of visual-linguistic interaction in static and dynamic scenes

2008· dissertation· en· W30224377 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline Van de Velde

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesConcordia UniversityGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance
KeywordsVerbNounLinguisticsPsychologySentenceTransitive relationReferentArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These studies examined the role of sentence and visual context in the access to verb-complement information, using a new eye tracker and change blindness paradigm. Participants' eye movements were monitored as they viewed pictures of objects (Experiment 1) or dynamic scenes (Experiment 2), and listened to related sentences. In Experiment 1, two sets of sentences were contrasted, a highly constraining causative construction in which there was a close conceptual relation between the verb and its direct object (e.g., "The woman burned the candle ") and a neutral construction with a transitive perception verb (e.g., "The woman admired the candle "). Starting at three different points within the presentation of the verb (onset, middle, offset) and noun (onset, offset, offset+200 ms), participants' task was to look and indicate whether the target objects mentioned in the sentences (e.g., " candle ") were present in the visual displays. Results indicate that semantic information extracted at the verb can be used to constrain the domain of reference in the scene and in some cases predict the referent of the grammatical complement of the verb, depending on tasks demands, conceptual consolidation, of the scene, and the presence of competitor objects. In Experiment 2, two different classes of verbs were contrasted, denominal and non-denominal verbs, which either implicitly (e.g., "The woman will iron the shirt ") or explicitly (e.g., "The woman will chop the vegetables with the knife ") named the instrument nouns. These movies were edited, unbeknownst to the participants, so that the real referents of the verb's grammatical object (e.g., " shirt/vegetables ") or instrument (e.g., " iron/knife ") gradually dissolved. Participants' task was to provide a detailed description of each scene, and later perform a recognition task. Although results indicate that information extracted from the sentence helped identify, describe and remember scene details, visual context seems to take precedence over linguistic input properties in guiding eye movements. In conclusion, the processor appears to incrementally integrate all available knowledge, linguistic and non-linguistic, with the aim to rapidly interpret the linguistic description of what we see in the world and how we may interact with it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207