Centre-of-Gravity Fixations in Visual Search: When Looking at Nothing Helps to Find Something

Venini, Dustin; Remington, Roger W.; Horstmann, Gernot; Becker, Stefanie I.

doi:10.1155/2014/237812

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present model reflects a probabilistic coupling between unobserved attention and fixations, in line with Henderson and Hollingworth's () “elastic band” metaphor. Equation implies that within an ROI, fixations are more likely to occur in the center than at the boundaries, in line with the “center of gravity effect” that has been observed for eye movements on a variety of scenes and objects (Venini, Remington, Horstmann, & Becker, ). The location of fixations does not otherwise exhibit spatial correlation.…”

Section: Identifying Regions Of Interest From Eye Movementssupporting

confidence: 64%

Nodule Detection with Eye Movements

Wedel

Yan

Siegel

et al. 2016

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiologists often miss nodules that may represent lung cancer on chest radiographs. We investigated whether eye movements collected during the search for lung nodules by large samples of laypeople may provide information that could assist radiologists in their detection. For that purpose, we developed a partially invisible Markov model with partially unobserved states and analyzed eye tracking data of over 100 laypeople who reviewed 14 chest X‐ray images, of which seven contained a potentially cancerous nodule. We used the luminance value of the pixels in the X‐ray images as prior information on the possible location of a nodule and identified six regions of interest on each image that may contain a nodule. Our study demonstrated that the eye movements recorded from laypersons contained information that may assist radiologists in the detection of nodules in chest X‐rays, which has important implications for crowdsourcing of search for pulmonary nodules, which are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Identifying Regions Of Interest From Eye Movementssupporting

confidence: 64%

Nodule Detection with Eye Movements

Wedel

Yan

Siegel

et al. 2016

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, note that there are other possibilities. For example, it is possible that skipping rates are different for easy and difficult searches because in easy search it might be sometimes possible to process more items during one fixation (Venini, Remington, Horstmann, & Becker, 2014). This would be expected in the context of the FVF Model (Hulleman & Olivers, 2017).…”

Section: Explaining the Similarity Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dwelling, rescanning, and skipping of distractors explain search efficiency in difficult search better than guidance by the target

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prominent models of overt and covert visual search focus on explaining search efficiency by visual guidance. That some searches are fast whereas others are slow is explained by the ability of the target to guide attention to the target's position. Comparably little attention is given to other variables that might also influence search efficiency, such as dwelling on distractors, skipping distractors, and revisiting distractors. Here, we examine the relative contributions of dwelling, skipping, rescanning, and the use of visual guidance, in explaining visual search times in general, and the similarity effect in particular. The hallmark of the similarity effect is more efficient search for a target that is dissimilar to the distractors compared to a target that is similar to the distractors. In the present experiment, participants have to find an emotional face target among nine neutral face non-targets. In different blocks, the target is either more or less similar to the non-targets. Eye-tracking is used to separately measure selection latency, dwelling on distractors, and skipping and revisiting of distractors. As expected, visual search times show a large similarity effect. Similarity also has strong effects on dwelling, skipping, and revisiting, but only weak effects on visual guidance. Regression analyses show that dwelling, skipping, and revisiting determine search times on trial level. The influence of dwelling and revisiting is stronger in target absent than in target present trials, whereas the opposite is true for skipping. The similarity effect is best explained by dwelling. Additionally, including a measure of guidance does not yield substantial benefits. In sum, results indicate that guidance by the target is not the sole principle behind fast search; rather, distractors are less often skipped, more often visited, and longer dwelled on in slow search conditions.

show abstract

“…One might argue that several spatially adjacent items can be selected at once with one fixation and that the selection of the singleton thus does not require a fixation on Fig. 2 Cumulative proportion for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd fixations on the singleton stimulus in the critical trial and on the stimuli in the precritical trials the singleton, but rather a fixation near the singleton (Hulleman & Olivers, 2016;Venini, Remington, Horstmann & Becker, 2014). We therefore tested whether the first fixations showed a higher probability of being on a stimulus near the singleton (i.e., on the singleton or the two non-singletons that flanked the singleton) than on stimuli further away (i.e., the remaining five stimuli non-adjacent to the singleton).…”

Section: Comparison Of Performances In the Critical And The Pre-critimentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

Horstmann

Becker

Ernst

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of characteristics of the visual system and of the visual stimulus are invoked to explain involuntary control of attention, including goals, novelty, and perceptual salience. The present experiment tested perceptual salience on a surprise trial, that is, on its unannounced first presentation following trials lacking any salient items, thus eliminating possible confounds by current goals. Moreover, the salient item's location was not singled out by a novel feature, thus eliminating a possible confound by novelty in directing attention. Eye tracking was used to measure involuntary attention. Results show a prioritization of the salient item. However, contrary to predictions of prominent neuro-computational and psychological salience models, prioritization was not fast-acting. Rather the observers' gaze was attracted only as the second fixation on average or later (depending on condition) and with a latency of more than 500 ms on average. These results support the general proposition that salience can control attention. However, contrary to most salience models, the present results indicate that salience changes attentional priority only in novel environments.

show abstract

Centre-of-Gravity Fixations in Visual Search: When Looking at Nothing Helps to Find Something

Cited by 12 publications

References 29 publications

Nodule Detection with Eye Movements

Nodule Detection with Eye Movements

Dwelling, rescanning, and skipping of distractors explain search efficiency in difficult search better than guidance by the target

Perceptual salience captures the eyes on a surprise trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About