Motor “laziness” constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks

Abstract

People coordinate their eye, head, and body movements to gather information from a dynamic environment while maximizing reward and minimizing biomechanical and energetic costs. Such natural behavior is not possible in a laboratory setting where the head and body are usually restrained and the tasks and stimuli used often lack ecological validity. Therefore, it's unclear to what extent principles of fixation selection derived from lab studies, such as inhibition-of-return (IOR), apply in a real-world setting. To address this gap, participants performed nine real-world tasks, including driving, grocery shopping, and building a lego set, while wearing a mobile eye tracker (169 recordings; 26.6 hours). Surprisingly, spatial and temporal IOR were absent in all tasks. Instead, participants most often returned to what they just viewed, and saccade latencies were shorter preceding return than forward saccades. We hypothesized that participants minimize the time their eyes spend in an eccentric position to conserve eye and head motor effort. Correspondingly, we observed center biases in the distributions of fixation location and duration, relative to the head's orientation. A model that generates scanpaths by randomly sampling these distributions reproduced the spatial and temporal return phenomena seen in the data, including distinct 3-fixation sequences for forward versus return saccades. The amount of the orbit used in each task traded off with fixation duration, as if both incur costs in the same space. Conservation of effort ("laziness") explains all these behaviors, demonstrating that motor costs shape how people extract and act on relevant visual information from the environment.

The search termination criterion mediating under exploration of 3D volumetric images

“…They would quit the search if "enough" fixations were executed without finding the target. The "enough fixations" threshold is premised on the notion of minimizing motor energetic costs (Araujo et al, 2001;Burlingham et al, 2023;Kowler, 2011) and multi-saccade planning (Hoppe & Rothkopf, 2019). We found significant differences between the number of fixations executed for the two targets in both the 3D and 2D search tasks (Figure 7b), suggesting that a more parsimonious explanation for the termination of the 2D and 3D search exists.…”