Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32392286›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

Task-dependence in scene perception: Head unrestrained viewing using mobile eye-tracking.

Daniel Backhaus, Ralf Engbert, Lars O M Rothkegel, Hans A Trukenbrod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Motor "laziness" constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel Backhaus,.
Ralf Engbert,.
Lars O M Rothkegel,.
Hans A Trukenbrod,.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world scene perception is typically studied in the laboratory using static picture viewing with restrained head position. Consequently, the transfer of results obtained in this paradigm to real-word scenarios has been questioned. The advancement of mobile eye-trackers and the progress in image processing, however, permit a more natural experimental setup that, at the same time, maintains the high experimental control from the standard laboratory setting. We investigated eye movements while participants were standing in front of a projector screen and explored images under four specific task instructions. Eye movements were recorded with a mobile eye-tracking device and raw gaze data were transformed from head-centered into image-centered coordinates. We observed differences between tasks in temporal and spatial eye-movement parameters and found that the bias to fixate images near the center differed between tasks. Our results demonstrate that current mobile eye-tracking technology and a highly controlled design support the study of fine-scaled task dependencies in an experimental setting that permits more natural viewing behavior than the static picture viewing paradigm.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsEye-Tracking TechnologyAdolescentAdultAlgorithmsFemaleFixation, OcularHeadHead MovementsHumansLinear ModelsMaleVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32392286
PMCPMC7409614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.