Eye tracking is more sensitive than skin conductance response in detecting mild environmental stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The skin conductance (SC) and eye tracking data are two potential arousal-related psychophysiological signals that can serve as the interoceptive unconditioned response to aversive stimuli (e.g. electric shocks). The current research investigates the sensitivity of these signals in detecting mild electric shock by decoding the hidden arousal and interoceptive awareness (IA) states. While well-established frameworks exist to decode the arousal state from the SC signal, there is a lack of a systematic approach that decodes the IA state from pupillometry and eye gaze measurements. We extract the physiological-based features from eye tracking data to recover the IA-related neural activity. Employing a Bayesian filtering framework, we decode the IA state in fear conditioning and extinction experiments where mild electric shock is used. We independently decode the underlying arousal state using binary and marked point process (MPP) observations derived from concurrently collected SC data. Eight of 11 subjects present a significantly (P-value <0.001) higher IA state in trials that were always accompanied by electric shock (CS+US+) compared to trials that were never accompanied by electric shock (CS−). According to the decoded SC-based arousal state, only five (binary observation) and four (MPP observation) subjects present a significantly higher arousal state in CS+US+ trials than CS− trials. In conclusion, the decoded hidden brain state from eye tracking data better agrees with the presented mild stimuli. Tracking IA state from eye tracking data can lead to the development of contactless monitors for neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".