arXiv AI
Sep 30

Similar Choices, Different Attention: Cross-Modal Associations in Humans and Vision-Language Models

The study compares human and vision‑language model (VLM) responses to cross‑modal association tasks, using identical stimuli (a pseudo‑word and two images) and recording both choices and eye movements. While larger VLMs show some alignment with human choices, their attention patterns correlate poorly with human gaze, performing no better than a simple center‑bias baseline. Fine‑tuning VLMs on human choices improves choice alignment but not attention alignment, and training on human gaze improves attention correlation without affecting choice accuracy.

By Sumin Hong, Katsumi Ibaraki, Renee Shi, David Chiang, Toby Jia-Jun Li
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 30

Reader Proficiency Shapes Layer-wise Surprisal Profiles

The study examines how reader proficiency influences the relationship between layer-wise surprisal from large language models (LLMs) and eye-tracking gaze measures. Using the MECO L2 corpus, researchers compared high- and low-proficiency readers on first-pass gaze duration (FPGD) and total gaze duration (TGD), finding that lower-proficiency readers exhibit deeper Predictive Depth for FPGD, while TGD shows deeper Predictive Depth across both groups. The results suggest that the distribution of predictive power across LLM layers relates to the timing and breadth of reading processes and varies with reader proficiency.

By Akio Hayakawa, Horacio Saggion
arXiv AI
Sep 4

GazeFS: Target-Centered Gaze-Trajectory Forecasting and Stabilization from Gaze-Head History

GazeFS is a model that predicts and stabilizes target‑centered gaze trajectories using a variable‑length gaze‑head history, without requiring target information during inference. It maps this history to the next target‑center direction and a short‑horizon Search/Focus estimate, improving focus target centering and reducing residual gaze error. Across 7,960 acquisition episodes from 30 participants, GazeFS reduces Focus episode bias, dispersion, and P90 target error by 0.182°, 0.257°, and 0.400°, respectively, while maintaining high phase‑balanced accuracy and AUPRC.

By Yaozheng Xia, Zaiping Zhu, Bo Pang, Minghao Xie, Hui Li, Shaorong Wang, Sheng Li