MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312086107 · doi:10.1002/alz.069228

Multi‐modal inadvertent signals enabling the capture of the learning process in real‐time. A new opportunity for preclinical intervention?

2022· article· en· W4312086107 on OpenAlexaff
Dana L. Penney, Sarbari Sarkar, Randall Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeStimulus (psychology)Computer scienceCognitionFixation (population genetics)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Gold standard episodic memory tests used to detect AD‐related cognitive decline are insensitive to subjective cognitive decline evident in preclinical AD. We believe a breakdown in the healthy learning process may be a cornerstone in preclinical AD cognitive impairment. We demonstrate the ability to capture the learning process in real‐time using strategic test design, inadvertent eye‐movements and digital ink behavior. We show early evidence of previously unseen learning strategies using data from three participants. Method We used the Digital Symbol Digit Learning Test (dSDLT) that we designed to explore learning. One condition presents a key that pairs elementary geometric symbols with numbers and a section of symbols alone, and is administered twice. The participant writes the appropriate digit beneath each symbol using a digitizing pen (providing time‐stamped digital ink coordinates) while wearing a lightweight PupilLabs eye‐tracker (permitting unconstrained head movement, reporting gaze position 240 times/sec to ±2 mm). Time‐synchronized signals measure gaze time in the key. Heat maps show fixation points in the key and response boxes. Result Figure 1 shows gaze time in the key for each administration (by item, in sequence for one subject), revealing no time in key for some items and less total time in the key for the second administration. We interpret no time in key as paired‐learning. Fixation heat maps showed an expected gaze pattern of looking from the stimulus symbol up to and scanning the key. Unexpected gaze patterns also emerged: Targeted gazes from the stimulus symbol directly to the corresponding symbol in the key, Figure 2, (suggesting spatial placement learning); Within‐key symbol comparisons, indicated by looking back‐and‐forth between items, suggesting figure discrimination learning (Figure3); and Referring back to a recently completed response box containing the same symbol, suggesting working memory (Figure 4). Conclusion Multimodal behavior capture combining inadvertent eye‐tracking signals with digital ink enables the capture of real‐time learning and provides insights into what participants are thinking in addition to what they are doing. The identification of unexpectedly rich, previously unseen learning behaviors provides a glimpse of the complex healthy learning process, provides opportunity to identify strategies heralding preclinical AD and potential preclinical intervention targets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder→French-language works237,207→