Gaze-Based Detection of Thoughts across Naturalistic Tasks Using a PSO-Optimized Random Forest Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One key aspect of the human experience is our ongoing stream of thoughts. These thoughts can be broadly categorized into various dimensions, which are associated with different impacts on mood, well-being, and productivity. While the past literature has often identified eye movements associated with a specific thought dimension (task-relatedness) during experimental tasks, few studies have determined if these various thought dimensions can be classified by oculomotor activity during naturalistic tasks. Employing thought sampling, eye tracking, and machine learning, we assessed the classification of nine thought dimensions (task-relatedness, freely moving, stickiness, goal-directedness, internal-external orientation, self-orientation, others orientation, visual modality, and auditory modality) across seven multi-day recordings of seven participants during self-selected computer tasks. Our analyses were based on a total of 1715 thought probes across 63 h of recordings. Automated binary-class classification of the thought dimensions was based on statistical features extracted from eye movement measures, including fixation and saccades. These features all served as input into a random forest (RF) classifier, which was then improved with particle swarm optimization (PSO)-based selection of the best subset of features for classifier performance. The mean Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) values from the PSO-based RF classifier across the thought dimensions ranged from 0.25 to 0.54, indicating above-chance level performance in all nine thought dimensions across participants and improved performance compared to the RF classifier without feature selection. Our findings highlight the potential of machine learning approaches combined with eye movement measures for the real-time prediction of naturalistic ongoing thoughts, particularly in ecologically valid contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".