Remote, tablet-based assessment of gaze following: a nationwide infant twin study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of our understanding of infant psychological development relies on in-person, lab-based assessment. This limits research generalizability, scalability, and equity in access. One solution is the development of new, remotely deployed assessment tools which don’t require real-time experimenter supervision. The current nationwide (Sweden) infant twin study assessed participants remotely via their caregiver’s tablets (N = 104, ages 3- to 17-months). To anchor our findings in previous research, we used a gaze following task where experimental and age effects have been well-established. Closely mimicking results from conventional eye tracking, we found that seeing a full head movement elicited more gaze following than seeing isolated eye movements. Further, as expected, we found that older infants followed gaze more frequently than younger infants. Finally, while we found no indication of genetic contributions to gaze following accuracy, latency to disengage from gaze cue and orient towards a target was significantly more similar in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins, indicative of heritability. Together, these results highlight the potential of remote assessment of infants’ psychological development, which can improve generalizability, inclusion and scalability in developmental research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".