Articlei-Perception2016
Visual Foraging With Fingers and Eye Gaze.
Article in i-Perception, 2016. 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.
- Article
- Spatial structure triggers systematic foraging: Segmenting search displays leads to searching by segments.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Foraging with your eyes: a novel task to study cognitive strategies involved in (visual) foraging behaviour.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- Understanding human visual foraging: a review.Biological cybernetics · 2025Review
- Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Establishing gaze markers of perceptual load during multi-target visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- The association of targets modulates the search efficiency in multitarget searches.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Stable individual differences in strategies within, but not between, visual search tasks.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2022Article
- Foraging as sampling without replacement: A Bayesian statistical model for estimating biases in target selection.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- The Predation Game: Does dividing attention affect patterns of human foraging?Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- Keeping it real: Looking beyond capacity limits in visual cognition.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Towards Interactive Search: Investigating Visual Search in a Novel Real-World Paradigm.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- The architecture of working memory: Features from multiple remembered objects produce parallel, coactive guidance of attention in visual search.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2020Article
- Major issues in the study of visual search: Part 2 of "40 Years of Feature Integration: Special Issue in Memory of Anne Treisman".Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Deep Active Inference and Scene Construction.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2020Article
- Seeing Beyond Salience and Guidance: The Role of Bias and Decision in Visual Search.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- The architecture of interaction between visual working memory and visual attention.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2018Article
- Opportunistic random searcher versus intentional search image user.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Understanding visual attention in childhood: Insights from a new visual foraging task.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A popular model of the function of selective visual attention involves search where a single target is to be found among distractors. For many scenarios, a more realistic model involves search for multiple targets of various types, since natural tasks typically do not involve a single target. Here we present results from a novel multiple-target foraging paradigm. We compare finger foraging where observers cancel a set of predesignated targets by tapping them, to gaze foraging where observers cancel items by fixating them for 100 ms. During finger foraging, for most observers, there was a large difference between foraging based on a single feature, where observers switch easily between target types, and foraging based on a conjunction of features where observers tended to stick to one target type. The pattern was notably different during gaze foraging where these condition differences were smaller. Two conclusions follow: (a) The fact that a sizeable number of observers (in particular during gaze foraging) had little trouble switching between different target types raises challenges for many prominent theoretical accounts of visual attention and working memory. (b) While caveats must be noted for the comparison of gaze and finger foraging, the results suggest that selection mechanisms for gaze and pointing have different operational constraints.
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.