Identifying Early Signs of Cognitive Deficits Using a Novel Eye-Tracking Protocol: Distinctions between Subjective Concerns and Healthy Controls.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dataset consists of behavioural and cognitive performance measures collected as part of a longitudinal study investigating visual recognition memory and related neurocognitive variables in older adults. Data were acquired at two time points approximately 12 months apart (Time 1 and Time 2). Participants were categorised into two groups based on self-reported cognitive status: Healthy Control (HC) and Subjective Cognitive Concern (SCC). All behavioural data were obtained under controlled laboratory conditions using standardized procedures.Eye-tracking–based Visual Paired Comparison (VPC) performance was assessed at both time points using a structured viewing paradigm that presents familiar and novel stimuli following either a 20-second or 2-minute delay interval. For each delay condition, the percentage of viewing time directed toward the novel stimulus was computed as the primary outcome measure. Eye-tracking data were processed using built-in software algorithms that automatically identify fixations and calculate fixation duration percentages. Cognitive performance was also measured via standardized tests, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), following established administration and scoring guidelines.The dataset contains 47 participants, each represented by a unique numerical identifier. Tabular data are provided in CSV format. Each row corresponds to a single participant, and columns represent:Group (1 = HC, 2 = SCC)Timepoint (1 or 2)VPC_20sec (percentage of fixation on the novel stimulus at the 20-second delay)VPC_2min (percentage of fixation at the 2-minute delay)MoCA scoreAll percentage-based variables are expressed as continuous numerical values. Cognitive test scores follow the standard scoring ranges defined by the respective instruments. Missing values are present in a small number of entries where participants did not complete a given measure at one of the time points. Missingness is non-systematic and primarily due to participant withdrawal or technical issues during eye-tracking acquisition (e.g., loss of calibration). No imputation has been applied; missing values are coded as blank cells in the CSV files.Internal consistency checks were performed to identify outliers, unexpected score ranges, and anomalous values. No measurement errors beyond expected human performance variability were detected. Eye-tracking error ranges align with typical commercial infrared-based systems, which maintain sub-degree spatial accuracy; however, as only percentage fixation measures are reported, hardware error is not directly expressed in the tabular data.The dataset is stored in comma-separated value (CSV) format, ensuring broad compatibility across statistical and data-analysis platforms such as R, Python, MATLAB, SPSS, and Excel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".