Eye blinking, musical processing, and subjective states—A methods account
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affective sciences often make use of self-reports to assess subjective states. Seeking a more implicit measure for states and emotions, our study explored spontaneous eye blinking during music listening. However, blinking is understudied in the context of research on subjective states. Therefore, a second goal was to explore different ways of analyzing blink activity recorded from infra-red eye trackers, using two additional data sets from earlier studies differing in blinking and viewing instructions. We first replicate the effect of increased blink rates during music listening in comparison with silence and show that the effect is not related to changes in self-reported valence, arousal, or to specific musical features. Interestingly, but in contrast, felt absorption reduced participants' blinking. The instruction to inhibit blinking did not change results. From a methodological perspective, we make suggestions about how to define blinks from data loss periods recorded by eye trackers and report a data-driven outlier rejection procedure and its efficiency for subject-mean analyses, as well as trial-based analyses. We ran a variety of mixed effects models that differed in how trials without blinking were treated. The main results largely converged across accounts. The broad consistency of results across different experiments, outlier treatments, and statistical models demonstrates the reliability of the reported effects. As recordings of data loss periods come for free when interested in eye movements or pupillometry, we encourage researchers to pay attention to blink activity and contribute to the further understanding of the relation between blinking, subjective states, and cognitive processing.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".