MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Synchronization of Eye Fixation and Saccade Measurements with Speech Recognition for Cognitive Assessment

2024· article· en· W4401808712 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsSaccadeComputer scienceFixation (population genetics)Synchronization (alternating current)Speech recognitionEye movementCognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The escalating prevalence of cognitive disorders, notably Alzheimer's disease (AD), necessitates the development of accessible and cost-effective diagnostic tools for early detection. Changes in both eye movements and speech patterns have been associated with cognitive decline, and combining eye-tracking and speech analysis technologies may have advantages in detecting cognitive decline. While traditional lab-grade eye tracking systems are effective, their widespread adoption is hindered by cost and accessibility. Recent advancements have explored the feasibility of low-cost webcam-based systems, yet challenges persist in accurately classifying eye movements due to noise and lower precision. Our study evaluates a proposed system for cognitive assessment that combines fixation and saccade measurements from webcam-based eye-tracking data with synchronized speech data obtained during cognitive tasks. We extend a previously proposed algorithm to seamlessly combine synchronized eye tracking and speech data streams for comprehensive analysis. The presented results demonstrate promising accuracy for the proposed methods in identifying fixations, saccades, and oral identification respective speech, with minor variations compared to manual annotations. Specifically, the comparison between predicted and actual onset times for fixations and saccades reveals minimal discrepancies, suggesting the algorithm has needed performance. Moreover, the assessment of oral identification onset relative to fixations provides valuable insights into cognitive processing and response times for subject to name the object that they have just fixated on. Our study contributes to advancing AD research and offers potential for developing innovative diagnostic tools.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207