Cognitive evaluation based on regression and eye-tracking for layout on human–computer multi-interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human–computer cooperation process guided by natural interaction, intelligent interaction, and human–computer integration is gradually becoming a new trend in human–computer interaction. Cooperative scenarios of human–computer interaction systems often contain multi-interface and multi-device results in edges often interrupt the cognitive ergonomics of interface layout. This research takes typical areas as an example to establish a stepwise regression model to predict reaction time at an arbitrary position on the left interface. It uses a foveal region to position the starting point of attention and a parafoveal region to calculate the radius of each objective area, and design 10 similar tasks to analyze eye-tracking indexes through physiological assessment. Unlike fixed thinking such as spatial proximity on multi-interfaces, this research summarises cognitive features of layout based on the positive and negative effects of edge impact through eye-tracking analysis. It analyzes cognition including input, process, and output in human–computer cooperation from human intelligence and artificial intelligence respectively, and visualises the mapping relationship between these indexes and specific stages of cognition. Besides, the quantitative evaluation of the regression equation and qualitative analysis of the eye-tracking indexes provide a reference for other interfaces around the front interface.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".