MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial updating of gaze position in younger and older adults – A path integration-like process in eye movements

2024· article· en· W4399662956 on OpenAlexafffund
Anisha Khosla, Morris Moscovitch, Jennifer D. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueCognition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGazePsychologyEye movementPath integrationProcess (computing)Cognitive psychologyPosition (finance)Path (computing)NeurosciencePsychoanalysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path integration (PI) is a navigation process that allows an organism to update its current location in reference to a starting point. PI can involve updating self-position continuously with respect to the starting point (continuous updating) or creating a map representation of the route which is then used to compute the homing vector (configural updating). One of the brain areas involved in PI, the entorhinal cortex, is modulated similarly by whole-body and eye movements, suggesting that if PI updates self-position, an analogous process may be used to update gaze position, and may undergo age-related changes. Here, we created an eyetracking version of a PI task in which younger and older participants followed routes with their eyes as guided by visual onsets; at the end of each route, participants were cued to return to the starting point or another enroute location. When only memory for the starting location was required for successful task performance, younger and older adults were generally not influenced by the number of locations, indicative of continuous updating. However, when participants could be cued to any enroute location, thereby requiring memory for the entire route, processing times increased, accuracy decreased, and overt revisits to enroute locations increased with the number of locations in a route, indicative of configural updating. Older participants showed evidence for similar updating strategies as younger participants, but they were less accurate and made more overt revisits to mid-route locations. These findings suggest that spatial updating mechanisms are generalizable across effector systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitionSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207