The influence of social context and social connection on visual perceptual processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to re-test whether a minimal social context has an influence on gaze patterns, and (2) to determine if a social connection (i.e., friendship) has a modulatory effect on gaze patterns in a minimal social context. In Experiment 1, two unacquainted participants were paired and seated at separate testing stations in the same room. At the beginning of each trial, participants were informed whether they were looking at different image sets (solo trials), or the same image set (joint trials). Image sets consisted of a positive, a negative, and two neutral images. No explicit task instructions were provided and there was no interaction between participants during the task. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, except that participants were paired with a friend. The fixation-based metrics of interest were time to first fixation (TFF) and total fixation duration (TFD). The findings revealed that social context has a modulatory effect on attentional capture (i.e., TFF) irrespective of social connection. Unexpectedly, a negativity bias was found to hold attention (i.e., TFD) regardless of social context. However, having a social connection did increase the time spent looking at positive images on the joint trials. Having a social connection with another person seems to alter looking behaviour such that more time is spent looking at positive images on the joint trials compared to the solo trials. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating both TFD and TFF to develop a better understanding of the factors underlying joint perception.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".