Why people keep watching: neurophysiologic immersion during video consumption increases viewing time and influences behavior
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
Streaming services provide people with a seemingly infinite set of entertainment choices. This large set of options makes the decision to view alternative content or stop consuming content altogether compelling. Yet, nearly all experimental studies of the attributes of video content and their ability to influence behavior require that participants view stimuli in their entirety. The present study measured neurophysiologic responses while participants viewed videos with the option to stop viewing without penalty in order to identify signals that capture the neural value of content. A post-video behavioral choice was included to reduce the likelihood that measured neurophysiologic responses were noise rather than signal. We found that a measure derived from neurophysiologic Immersion predicted how long participants would watch a video. Further, the time spent watching a video increased the likelihood that it influenced behavior. The analysis indicates that the neurologic value one receives helps explain why people continue to watch videos and why they are influenced by them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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