Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Estimating Central, Peripheral, and Temporal Visual Contributions to Human Decision Making in Atari Games

Henrik Krauss, Takehisa Yairi · Apr 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Recent

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Recent

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Recent

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments. Using Atari-HEAD, a large-scale Atari gameplay dataset with synchronized eye-tracking, we introduce a controlled ablation framework as a means to reverse-engineer the contribution of peripheral visual information, explicit gaze information in form of gaze maps, and past-state information from human behavior. We train action-prediction networks under six settings that selectively include or exclude these information sources. Across 20 games, peripheral information shows by far the strongest contribution, with median prediction-accuracy drops in the range of 35.27-43.90% when removed. Gaze information yields smaller drops of 2.11-2.76%, while past-state information shows a broader range of 1.52-15.51%, with the upper end likely more informative due to reduced peripheral-information leakage. To complement aggregate accuracies, we cluster states by true-action probabilities assigned by the different model configurations. This analysis identifies coarse behavioral regimes, including focus-dominated, periphery-dominated, and more contextual decision situations. These results suggest that human decision making in Atari depends strongly on information beyond the current focus of gaze, while the proposed framework provides a way to estimate such information-source contributions from behavior.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

Automatic metrics

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Accuracy

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Across 20 games, peripheral information shows by far the strongest contribution, with median prediction-accuracy drops in the range of 35.27-43.90% when removed.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • We study how different visual information sources contribute to human decision making in dynamic visual environments.
  • Using Atari-HEAD, a large-scale Atari gameplay dataset with synchronized eye-tracking, we introduce a controlled ablation framework as a means to reverse-engineer the contribution of peripheral visual information, explicit gaze information in form of gaze maps, and past-state information from human behavior.
  • We train action-prediction networks under six settings that selectively include or exclude these information sources.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.