MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092074291 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106389

Response time and eye tracking datasets for activities demanding varying cognitive load

2020· article· en· W3092074291 on OpenAlexafffund
Prarthana Pillai, Prathamesh Ayare, Balakumar Balasingam, Kevin Milne, Francesco Biondi

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitive loadAlertnessEye trackingAutomationMachine learningTask (project management)CognitionSituation awarenessArtificial intelligenceBitTorrent trackerHuman–computer interactionSupport vector machineSimulationEngineeringPsychologySystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dataset contains the following three measures that are widely used to determine cognitive load in humans: Detection Response Task - response time, pupil diameter, and eye gaze. These measures were recorded from 28 participants while they underwent tasks that are designed to permeate three different cognitive difficulty levels. The dataset will be useful to those researchers who seek to employ low cost, non-invasive sensors to detect cognitive load in humans and to develop algorithms for human-system automation. One such application is found in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems where eye-trackers are employed to monitor the alertness of the drivers. The dataset would also be helpful to researchers who are interested in employing machine learning algorithms to develop predictive models of humans for applications in human-machine system automation. The data is collected by the authors at the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering in collaboration with the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the University of Windsor under the guidance of their Research Ethics Board.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.010

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207