MDES and Movie Watching: Examining Thought Patterns During Movie Watching Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi dimensional experience sampling (MDES) occurs when questions are asked to participants while they are completing a certain task, and to assess and examine various facets and thought processes of participant’s experience while encountering that particular activity (Wallace et al., 2024). For instance, examining a participant's emotional state. This sampling method was applied to a movie watching study completed over the duration of May to August 2024. The study included 15 participants, who each observed a total of 15 film clips, in person in the lab located in Kingston, Ontario. The clips each ranged from one to three minutes, and comprised of various film genres. Participants would then complete an MDES questionnaire after observing each film clip. Once the data was obtained, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was completed. It was discovered that four components of thought were found including intrusive distraction, sensory engagement, episodic knowledge, and narrative comprehension of the clips. Episodic knowledge highlights the participant’s attention fixating on past events and their emotions and focuses less on current deliberate thoughts, and narrative comprehension concentrates on the participant’s problem-solving skills to understand the content occurring in the clips. Whereas, participant’s sensory engagement features their focus to sounds and images in the clips, and intrusive distraction aids in displaying that their focus is poor while viewing the clips, but their intrusive thoughts are high. Using the data it can be assumed that various thought processes can occur while an individual observes movies. It also aided in identifying any factors that could help or hinder participants' ability to focus on the movie clip task. The data can be beneficial in furthering our understanding of an individual's attentional abilities when viewing various genres and pieces of media. Works Cited Wallace, R. S., Mckeown, B., Goodall-Halliwell, I., Chitiz, L., Forest, P., Karapanagiotidis, T., Mulholland, B., Turnbull, A. G., Vanderwal, T., Hardikar, S., Alam, T. G., Bernhardt, B., Wang, H.-T., Strawson, W., Milham, M., Xu, T., Margulies, D., Poerio, G. L., Jefferies, E., … Smallwood, J. (2024). Mapping Patterns of Thought onto Brain Activity during Movie-Watching, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.31.578244
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".