Does It MultiMatch? What Scanpath Comparison Tells us About Task Performance in Teams
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
Teamwork and collaboration form the cornerstones of organizational performance and success. It is important to understand how the attention allocation of team members is linked to performance. One approach to studying attention allocation in a team context is to compare the scanpath similarity of two people working in teams and to explore the link between scanpath similarity and team performance. In this study, participants were recruited to work in pairs on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) task that included low and high workload conditions. An eye tracker was used to collect the eye movements of both participants in each team. The scanpaths of two teammates were compared in low and high workload conditions using MultiMatch, an established scanpath comparison algorithm. The obtained scanpath similarity values were correlated with performance measures of response time and accuracy. Several MultiMatch measures showed significant strong correlations across multiple dimensions, providing insight into team behavior and attention allocation. The results suggested that the more similar each team member’s scanpath is, the better their performance. Additional research and consideration of experimental variables will be necessary to further understand how best to use MultiMatch for scanpath similarity assessment in complex domains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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