MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379616756 · doi:10.1101/2023.06.06.543799

Continuous Measures of Decision-Difficulty Captured Remotely: II. Webcam eye-tracking reveals early decision processing

2023· preprint· en· W4379616756 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer K. Bertrand, Alexandra A. Ouellette Zuk, Craig S. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsEye trackingComputer scienceGazeEye movementArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As decisions require the gathering of relevant information, eye-tracking measures that capture the way visual information is typically acquired offer powerful indices of the dynamic decision-making process. This study is the second of a pair of studies that explore continuous measures of decision-making using remote, online tools in naturalistic settings. While cursor-tracking, used in the companion paper (Ouellette Zuk et al., 2023), enabled access to dynamic decision processes expressed during movement, in the present study, we now employ webcam eye-tracking to examine the dynamics of information gathering during decision making prior to movement initiation. Using three previously published binary choice tasks, we explored indices of decision difficulty in the gaze dynamics that would complement the motor measures in our companion paper. We find that harder choices elicit more eye dwells and longer final dwells, reflecting a decision resolution process that Ouellette Zuk et al. index during the final choice movement. Beyond this, we identify distinct gaze patterns uniquely employed in each task, revealing the utility and sensitivity of gaze metrics in illuminating the early difficulty-independent information gathering processes at play. Together, this paper series demonstrates the power of remote, online methods as tools for deeply understanding the complete, dynamic and continuous decision process, from the first glance to the final response.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207