ArticleJournal of vision2024
When knowing the activity is not enough to predict gaze.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaze when walking to grasp an object in the presence of obstacles.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- gazeMapper: A tool for automated world-based analysis of gaze data from one or multiple wearable eye trackers.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The fundamentals of eye tracking part 1: The link between theory and research question.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Gaze-action coupling, gaze-gesture coupling, and exogenous attraction of gaze in dyadic interactions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
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
It is reasonable to assume that where people look in the world is largely determined by what they are doing. The reasoning is that the activity determines where it is useful to look at each moment in time. Assuming that it is vital to accurately judge the positions of the steps when navigating a staircase, it is surprising that people differ a lot in the extent to which they look at the steps. Apparently, some people consider the accuracy of peripheral vision, predictability of the step size, and feeling the edges of the steps with their feet to be good enough. If so, occluding part of the view of the staircase and making it more important to place one's feet gently might make it more beneficial to look directly at the steps before stepping onto them, so that people will more consistently look at many steps. We tested this idea by asking people to walk on staircases, either with or without a tray with two cups of water on it. When carrying the tray, people walked more slowly, but they shifted their gaze across steps in much the same way as they did when walking without the tray. They did not look at more steps. There was a clear positive correlation between the fraction of steps that people looked at when walking with and without the tray. Thus, the variability in the extent to which people look at the steps persists when one makes walking on the staircase more challenging.
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.