An Eye Tracking Investigation of Pain Decoding Based on Older and Younger Adults’ Facial Expressions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonverbal pain cues such as facial expressions, are useful in the systematic assessment of pain in people with dementia who have severe limitations in their ability to communicate. Nonetheless, the extent to which observers rely on specific pain-related facial responses (e.g., eye movements, frowning) when judging pain remains unclear. Observers viewed three types of videos of patients expressing pain (younger patients, older patients without dementia, older patients with dementia) while wearing an eye tracker device that recorded their viewing behaviors. They provided pain ratings for each patient in the videos. These observers assigned higher pain ratings to older adults compared to younger adults and the highest pain ratings to patients with dementia. Pain ratings assigned to younger adults showed greater correspondence to objectively coded facial reactions compared to older adults. The correspondence of observer ratings was not affected by the cognitive status of target patients as there were no differences between the ratings assigned to older adults with and without dementia. Observers' percentage of total dwell time (amount of time that an observer glances or fixates within a defined visual area of interest) across specific facial areas did not predict the correspondence of observers' pain ratings to objective coding of facial responses. Our results demonstrate that patient characteristics such as age and cognitive status impact the pain decoding process by observers when viewing facial expressions of pain in others.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it