What distinguishes the locations that we fixate from those that we do not? To answer this question we recorded eye movements while observers viewed natural scenes, and recorded image characteristics centred at the locations that observers fixated. To investigate potential differences in the visual characteristics of fixated versus non-fixated locations, these images were transformed to make intensity, contrast, colour, and edge content explicit. Signal detection and information theoretic techniques were then used to compare fixated regions to those that were not. The presence of contrast and edge information was more strongly discriminatory than luminance or chromaticity. Fixated locations tended to be more distinctive in the high spatial frequencies. Extremes of low frequency luminance information were avoided. With prolonged viewing, consistency in fixation locations between observers decreased. In contrast to [Parkhurst, D. J., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42 (1), 107-123] we found no change in the involvement of image features over time. We attribute this difference in our results to a systematic bias in their metric. We propose that saccade target selection involves an unchanging intermediate level representation of the scene but that the high-level interpretation of this representation changes over time.

No abstract

We investigated the processing effort during visual search and counting tasks using a pupil dilation measure. Search difficulty was manipulated by varying the number of distractors as well as the heterogeneity of the distractors. More difficult visual search resulted in more pupil dilation than did less difficult search. These results confirm a link between effort and increased pupil dilation. The pupil dilated more during the counting task than during target-absent search, even though the displays were identical, and the two tasks were matched for reaction time. The moment-to-moment dilation pattern during search suggests little effort in the early stages, but increasingly more effort towards response, whereas the counting task involved an increased initial effort, which was sustained throughout the trial. These patterns can be interpreted in terms of the differential memory load for item locations in each task. In an additional experiment, increasing the spatial memory requirements of the search evoked a corresponding increase in pupil dilation. These results support the view that search tasks involve some, but limited, memory for item locations, and the effort associated with this memory load increases during the trials. In contrast, counting involves a heavy locational memory component from the start.

Visual search-looking for a target object in the presence of a number of distractor items-is an everyday activity for humans (for example, finding the car in a busy car park) and animals (for example, foraging for food). Our understanding of visual search has been enriched by an interdisciplinary effort using a wide range of research techniques including behavioural studies in humans [1], single-cell electrophysiology [2], transcranial magnetic stimulation [3], event-related potentials [4] and studies of patients with focal brain injury [5]. A central question is what kind of information controls the search process. Visual search is typically accompanied by a series of eye movements, and investigating the nature and location of fixations helps to identify the kind of information that might control the search process. It has already been demonstrated that objects are fixated if they are visually similar to the target [6]. Also, if an item has been fixated, it is less likely to be returned to on the subsequent saccade. This automatic process is referred to as inhibition of return (IOR [7,8]). Here, we investigated the role of memory for which items had been fixated previously. We found that, during search, subjects often refixated items that had been previously fixated. Although there were fewer return saccades than would be expected by chance, the number of refixations indicated limited functional memory, indeed the memory effects that were present may primarily be a result of IOR.

No abstract