The interplay between motor cost and self-efficacy related to walking across terrain in gaze and walking decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Movement-related decisions, such as where to step and which path to take, happen throughout each day. Shifts in gaze serve to extract task-relevant information necessary to make these decisions. We are only beginning to appreciate the factors that affect this information-seeking gaze behaviour. Here, we aimed to determine how a person’s belief in their ability to perform an action (i.e., self-efficacy) affected gaze and path choice when choosing between walking paths with different terrains and/or lengths (reflecting different energetic costs). We demonstrated that, when manipulated separately (i.e., paths had different lengths or different terrains), participants looked longer and more frequently and chose the paths with either less expected energetic cost or those for which they had a higher self-efficacy rating. When encountering environments where paths differed in both length and terrain, participants directed gaze progressively more to the longer path as the self-efficacy rating of this path increased and the disparity in rating with the shorter (less costly) path grew; they also chose the higher-rated path more frequently regardless of path length. These results provide evidence for a contribution of self-efficacy and energetic cost in guiding gaze and walking decisions. Interestingly, self-efficacy beliefs appear to play a more dominant role in both behaviours.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".