Eye-head coordination and dynamic visual scanning as indicators of visuo-cognitive demands in driving simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Driving is an everyday task involving a complex interaction between visual and cognitive processes. As such, an increase in the cognitive and/or visual demands can lead to a mental overload which can be detrimental for driving safety. Compiling evidence suggest that eye and head movements are relevant indicators of visuo-cognitive demands and attention allocation. This study aims to investigate the effects of visual degradation on eye-head coordination as well as visual scanning behavior during a highly demanding task in a driving simulator. A total of 21 emmetropic participants (21 to 34 years old) performed dual-task driving in which they were asked to maintain a constant speed on a highway while completing a visual search and detection task on a navigation device. Participants did the experiment with optimal vision and with contact lenses that introduced a visual perturbation (myopic defocus). The results indicate modifications of eye-head coordination and the dynamics of visual scanning in response to the visual perturbation induced. More specifically, the head was more involved in horizontal gaze shifts when the visual needs were not met. Furthermore, the evaluation of visual scanning dynamics, based on time-based entropy which measures the complexity and randomness of scanpaths, revealed that eye and gaze movements became less explorative and more stereotyped when vision was not optimal. These results provide evidence for a reorganization of both eye and head movements in response to increasing visual-cognitive demands during a driving task. Altogether, these findings suggest that eye and head movements can provide relevant information about visuo-cognitive demands associated with complex tasks. Ultimately, eye-head coordination and visual scanning dynamics may be good candidates to estimate drivers’ workload and better characterize risky driving behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".