Ice hockey spectators use contextual cues to guide predictive eye movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye movements are an integral part of human visual perception. They allow us to have a small foveal region with exquisite acuity and at the same time a large visual field. For a long time, eye movements were regarded as machine-like behaviors in response to visual stimulation 1 , but over the past few decades it has been convincingly shown that expectations, intended actions, rewards and many other cognitive factors can have profound effects on the way we move our eyes 2–4 . In order to be useful, our oculomotor system must minimize delay with respect to the dynamic events in the visual scene. The ability to do so has been demonstrated in situations where we are in control of these events, for example when we are making a sandwich or tea 5 , and when we are active participants, for example when hitting a cricket ball 6 . But what about scenes with complex dynamics that we do not control or directly take part in, like a hockey game we are watching as a spectator? A semantic influence on gaze fixation location during viewing of tennis videos has been suggested before 7 . Here we use carefully annotated hockey videos to show that the brain is indeed able to exploit the semantic context of the game to anticipate the continuous motion of the puck, leading to eye movements that are fundamentally different than when following exactly the same motion without any context.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".