Looking at the center of the targets helps multiple object tracking

Fehd, Hilda M.

doi:10.1167/10.4.19

Cited by 85 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this purpose, 11 regions of interest were defined as circles with a diameter of 5°over each square as well as over the centroid, which was calculated as the center of mass of the polygon formed by the four targets (Fehd & Seiffert, 2010). Whenever the current gaze vector hit a region of interest, the respective frame was counted for the related object.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This meant that, in cases of overlapping regions, an allocation to two or even more objects was possible. The number of counted frames per region was then divided by the total number of frames in the trial (i.e., by 1,200 frames for the 6 s of motion time), resulting in percentages of gaze allocation time for each region of interest, a variable that was termed the "gaze overlap time" by Fehd and Seiffert (2010).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Significant interaction effects were further analyzed with planned t tests. On the basis of the results reported by Fehd and Seiffert (2010), the alpha level for tests on differences was set a priori to α = .05. A-posteriori effect sizes were computed as partial eta squared (η p 2 ), and in cases of nonsignificant tests, the power (1 -β) was calculated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, the role of "rescue saccades" in MOT has been examined by Zelinsky and Todor (2010), who found that anticipatory saccades are driven by the potential for losing track of a target when it is close to a barrier occluder or a distractor. It could, therefore, be that participants preferably use their peripheral vision to monitor target positions while "anchoring" their gaze on the virtual centroid (Fehd & Seiffert, 2010;Zelinsky & Neider, 2008), and that they initiate saccades just before the distance of a target from other objects becomes too small (Zelinsky & Todor, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

Vater

Kredel

Hossner

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we investigated whether peripheral vision can be used to monitor multiple moving objects and to detect single-target changes. For this purpose, in Experiment 1, a modified multiple object tracking (MOT) setup with a large projection screen and a constant-position centroid phase had to be checked first. Classical findings regarding the use of a virtual centroid to track multiple objects and the dependency of tracking accuracy on target speed could be successfully replicated. Thereafter, the main experimental variations regarding the manipulation of to-bedetected target changes could be introduced in Experiment 2. In addition to a button press used for the detection task, gaze behavior was assessed using an integrated eyetracking system. The analysis of saccadic reaction times in relation to the motor response showed that peripheral vision is naturally used to detect motion and form changes in MOT, because saccades to the target often occurred after target-change offset. Furthermore, for changes of comparable task difficulties, motion changes are detected better by peripheral vision than are form changes. These findings indicate that the capabilities of the visual system (e.g., visual acuity) affect change detection rates and that covert-attention processes may be affected by vision-related aspects such as spatial uncertainty. Moreover, we argue that a centroid-MOT strategy might reduce saccaderelated costs and that eyetracking seems to be generally valuable to test the predictions derived from theories of MOT.Finally, we propose implications for testing covert attention in applied settings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

Vater

Kredel

Hossner

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 'centre looking' approach is often used in the multiple-object tracking paradigm devised by Pylyshyn and Storm (1988). In performing this task, subjects commonly fixate the central region of 'empty space' between several moving targets, a gaze strategy reported to enhance tracking accuracy and to be consistent with a 'multifocal' division of attention (Tombu and Seiffert 2008;Fehd and Seiffert 2010). Such divided attentive tracking has further been shown to involve perceptual grouping of the targets into a coherent 'virtual' object (Yantis 1992) from which its COM is derived and to generate cortical activations that extend beyond parieto-frontal eye movement networks into ventral stream object processing-related areas (Culham et al 1998).…”

Section: Are Different (Sub-optimal) Gaze Strategies Adopted Under Momentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

Grant

2015

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractMost adults can skillfully avoid potential obstacles when acting in everyday cluttered scenes. We examined how gaze and hand movements are normally coordinated for obstacle avoidance and whether these are altered when binocular depth information is unavailable. Visual fixations and hand movement kinematics were simultaneously recorded while 13 right-handed subjects reached-toprecision grasp a cylindrical household object presented alone or with a potential obstacle (wine glass) located to its left (thumb's grasp-side), right or just behind it (both closer to the finger's grasp-side) using binocular or monocular vision. Gaze and hand movement strategies differed significantly by view and obstacle location. With binocular vision, initial fixations were near the target's centre of mass (COM) around the time of hand movement onset, but usually shifted to end just above the thumb's grasp-site at initial object contact, this mainly be made by the thumb, consistent with selecting this digit for guiding the grasp. This strategy was associated with faster binocular hand movements and improved end-point grip precision across all trials than with monocular viewing, during which subjects usually continued to fixate the target closer to its COM despite a similar prevalence of thumb-first contacts. While subjects looked directly at the obstacle at each location on a minority of trials and their overall fixations on the target were somewhat biased towards the grasp-side nearest to it, these gaze behaviours were particularly marked on monocular vision-obstacle behind trials which also commonly ended in finger-first contact. Subjects avoided colliding with the wine glass under both views when on the right (finger-side) of the workspace by producing slower and straighter reaches, with this and the behind obstacle location also resulting in 'safer' (i.e., narrower) peak grip apertures and longer deceleration times than when the goal-object was alone or the obstacle was on its thumb-side. But monocular reach paths were more variable and deceleration times were selectively prolonged on finger-side and behind obstacle trials, with this latter condition further resulting in selectively increased grip closure times and corrections. Binocular vision thus provided added advantages for collision avoidance, known to require intact dorsal cortical stream processing mechanisms, particularly when the target of the grasp and potential obstacle to it were fairly closely separated in depth. Different accounts of the altered monocular gaze behaviour converged on the conclusion that additional perceptual and/or attentional resources are likely engaged compared to when continuous binocular depth information is available. Implications for people lacking binocular stereopsis are briefly considered.

show abstract

How to Perceive Object Permanence in Our Visual Environment: The Multiple Object Tracking Paradigm

Merkel

Hopf

Schoenfeld

2019

Spatial Learning and Attention Guidance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Looking at the center of the targets helps multiple object tracking

Cited by 85 publications

References 50 publications

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

Detecting single-target changes in multiple object tracking: The case of peripheral vision

Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing

How to Perceive Object Permanence in Our Visual Environment: The Multiple Object Tracking Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About