Oculomotor behaviors in youth with an eating disorder: findings from a video-based eye tracking task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oculomotor circuit spans many cortical and subcortical areas that have been implicated in psychiatric disease. This, combined with previous findings, suggests that eye tracking may be a useful method to investigate eating disorders. Therefore, this study aimed to assess oculomotor behaviors in youth with and without an eating disorder. METHODS: Female youth with and without an eating disorder completed a structured task involving randomly interleaved pro-saccade (toward at a stimulus) and anti-saccade (away from stimulus) trials with video-based eye tracking. Differences in saccades (rapid eye movements between two points), eye blinks and pupil were examined. RESULTS: = 17.88 ± 4.3 years). The eating disorder group was composed of individuals with anorexia nervosa (n = 49), bulimia nervosa (n = 7) and other specified feeding or eating disorder (n = 9). The eating disorder group was further divided into two subgroups: individuals with a restrictive spectrum eating disorder (ED-R; n = 43) or a bulimic spectrum eating disorder (ED-BP; n = 22). In pro-saccade trials, the eating disorder group made significantly more fixation breaks than HCs (F(1,128) = 5.33, p = 0.023). The ED-BP group made the most anticipatory pro-saccades, followed by ED-R, then HCs (F(2,127) = 3.38, p = 0.037). Groups did not differ on rate of correct express or regular latency pro-saccades. In anti-saccade trials, groups only significantly differed on percentage of direction errors corrected (F(2, 127) = 4.554, p = 0.012). The eating disorder group had a significantly smaller baseline pupil size (F(2,127) = 3.60, p = 0.030) and slower pro-saccade dilation velocity (F(2,127) = 3.30, p = 0.040) compared to HCs. The ED-R group had the lowest blink probability during the intertrial interval (ITI), followed by ED-BP, with HCs having the highest ITI blink probability (F(2,125) = 3.63, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that youth with an eating disorder may have different oculomotor behaviors during a structured eye tracking task. The oculomotor behavioral differences observed in this study presents an important step towards identifying neurobiological and cognitive contributions towards eating disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".