Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38169029›Full record

ReviewAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Refixation behavior in naturalistic viewing: Methods, mechanisms, and neural correlates.

Andrey R Nikolaev, Radha Nila Meghanathan, Cees van Leeuwen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Andrey R NikolaevDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, 22100, Lund, Sweden. andrey.nikolaev@psy.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5126-8566
Radha Nila MeghanathanDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany.
Cees van LeeuwenBrain & Cognition Research Unit, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When freely viewing a scene, the eyes often return to previously visited locations. By tracking eye movements and coregistering eye movements and EEG, such refixations are shown to have multiple roles: repairing insufficient encoding from precursor fixations, supporting ongoing viewing by resampling relevant locations prioritized by precursor fixations, and aiding the construction of memory representations. All these functions of refixation behavior are understood to be underpinned by three oculomotor and cognitive systems and their associated brain structures. First, immediate saccade planning prior to refixations involves attentional selection of candidate locations to revisit. This process is likely supported by the dorsal attentional network. Second, visual working memory, involved in maintaining task-related information, is likely supported by the visual cortex. Third, higher-order relevance of scene locations, which depends on general knowledge and understanding of scene meaning, is likely supported by the hippocampal memory system. Working together, these structures bring about viewing behavior that balances exploring previously unvisited areas of a scene with exploiting visited areas through refixations.

Indexed as

AttentionEye MovementsMemory, Short-TermVisual PerceptionElectroencephalographyFixation, OcularHumansSaccadesAttentionEye movementsGaze returnsMemoryNeural activityVisual perception

Identifiers

PMID38169029
PMCPMC11845542

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.