ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2013
Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extra-foveal Processing of Object Semantics Guides Early Overt Attention During Visual Search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Trial
- Guidance of attention by statistical learning when multiple guidance mechanisms compete.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.Vision research · 2022Article
- Weighting the factors affecting attention guidance during free viewing and visual search: The unexpected role of object recognition uncertainty.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Extrafoveal Processing in Categorical Search for Geometric Shapes: General Tendencies and Individual Variations.Cognitive science · 2021Article
- COCO-Search18 fixation dataset for predicting goal-directed attention control.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Target specificity improves search, but how universal is the benefit?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Medium versus difficult visual search: How a quantitative change in the functional visual field leads to a qualitative difference in performance.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Temporal Limitations of the Standard Leaky Integrate and Fire Model.Brain sciences · 2019Article
- Understanding Moment-to-Moment Processing of Visual Narratives.Cognitive science · 2018Article
- Adding details to the attentional template offsets search difficulty: Evidence from contralateral delay activity.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2017Article
- A Model of the Superior Colliculus Predicts Fixation Locations during Scene Viewing and Visual Search.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017Article
- Searching for Category-Consistent Features: A Computational Approach to Understanding Visual Category Representation.Psychological science · 2016Article
- Using multidimensional scaling to quantify similarity in visual search and beyond.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2016Review
- Modeling peripheral visual acuity enables discovery of gaze strategies at multiple time scales during natural scene search.Journal of vision · 2015Article
- The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2015Review
- Effects of target typicality on categorical search.Journal of vision · 2014Article
- More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: evidence from contralateral delay activity.Journal of vision · 2014Article
- Selective visual processing across competition episodes: a theory of task-driven visual attention and working memory.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2013Review
- Attention in natural scenes: contrast affects rapid visual processing and fixations alike.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We introduce a model of eye movements during categorical search, the task of finding and recognizing categorically defined targets. It extends a previous model of eye movements during search (target acquisition model, TAM) by using distances from an support vector machine classification boundary to create probability maps indicating pixel-by-pixel evidence for the target category in search images. Other additions include functionality enabling target-absent searches, and a fixation-based blurring of the search images now based on a mapping between visual and collicular space. We tested this model on images from a previously conducted variable set-size (6/13/20) present/absent search experiment where participants searched for categorically defined teddy bear targets among random category distractors. The model not only captured target-present/absent set-size effects, but also accurately predicted for all conditions the numbers of fixations made prior to search judgements. It also predicted the percentages of first eye movements during search landing on targets, a conservative measure of search guidance. Effects of set size on false negative and false positive errors were also captured, but error rates in general were overestimated. We conclude that visual features discriminating a target category from non-targets can be learned and used to guide eye movements during categorical search.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.