ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Scene meaningfulness guides eye movements even during mind-wandering.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spontaneous associative thought may facilitate scene-gist memory via implicit scene-labeling.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During scene viewing, semantic information in the scene has been shown to play a dominant role in guiding fixations compared to visual salience (e.g., Henderson & Hayes, 2017). However, scene viewing is sometimes disrupted by cognitive processes unrelated to the scene. For example, viewers sometimes engage in mind-wandering, or having thoughts unrelated to the current task. How do meaning and visual salience account for fixation allocation when the viewer is mind-wandering, and does it differ from when the viewer is on-task? We asked participants to study a series of real-world scenes in preparation for a later memory test. Thought probes occasionally occurred after a subset of scenes to assess whether participants were on-task or mind-wandering. We used salience maps (Graph-Based Visual Saliency; Harel, Koch, & Perona, 2007) and meaning maps (Henderson & Hayes, 2017) to represent the distribution of visual salience and semantic richness in the scene, respectively. Because visual salience and meaning were represented similarly, we could directly compare how well they predicted fixation allocation. Our results indicate that fixations prioritized meaningful over visually salient regions in the scene during mind-wandering just as during attentive viewing. These results held across the entire viewing time. A re-analysis of an independent study (Krasich, Huffman, Faber, & Brockmole Journal of Vision, 20(9), 10, 2020) showed similar results. Therefore, viewers appear to prioritize meaningful regions over visually salient regions in real-world scenes even during mind-wandering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34553314What 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.