LAG-1: A dynamic, integrative model of learning, attention, and gaze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is clear that learning and attention interact, but it is an ongoing challenge to integrate their psychological and neurophysiological descriptions. Here we introduce LAG-1, a dynamic neural field model of learning, attention and gaze, that we fit to human learning and eye-movement data from two category learning experiments. LAG-1 comprises three control systems: one for visuospatial attention, one for saccadic timing and control, and one for category learning. The model is able to extract a kind of information gain from pairwise differences in simple associations between visual features and categories. Providing this gain as a reentrant signal with bottom-up visual information, and in top-down spatial priority, appropriately influences the initiation of saccades. LAG-1 provides a moment-by-moment simulation of the interactions of learning and gaze, and thus simultaneously produces phenomena on many timescales, from the duration of saccades and gaze fixations, to the response times for trials, to the slow optimization of attention toward task relevant information across a whole experiment. With only three free parameters (learning rate, trial impatience, and fixation impatience) LAG-1 produces qualitatively correct fits for learning, behavioural timing and eye movement measures, and also for previously unmodelled empirical phenomena (e.g., fixation orders showing stimulus-specific attention, and decreasing fixation counts during feedback). Because LAG-1 is built to capture attention and gaze generally, we demonstrate how it can be applied to other phenomena of visual cognition such as the free viewing of visual stimuli, visual search, and covert attention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".