Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41042030›Full record

ReviewJournal of vision2025

Computational elements of natural vision.

Constantin A Rothkopf, Mary M Hayhoe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Constantin A RothkopfCentre for Cognitive Science & Institute of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Mary M HayhoeCentre for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

VISUAL SENSITIVITY REGULATION &COLOR CODINGR01EY005729 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI HAYHOE, MARY M · 1985 to 2023
$7.0M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY005729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultimately, human behavior needs to be understood in the context of natural everyday tasks. Over the last two decades, a number of observations of natural visually guided behavior have accumulated. These observations help define the functional demands placed on the visual system in a variety of tasks, but progress has been limited by the diversity of natural behavior and by the lack of unified theoretical structures to guide understanding of the underlying processes. In this article, we summarize some recent attempts that might provide a template for a more formal approach. This is possible because it has become clear that natural behavior has many regularities reflecting the underlying sensorimotor decisions. We first summarize these regularities and then show how simple visually guided behaviors can be well described by partially observable Markov decision processes. We give examples of how laboratory experiments can be designed to elicit the common elements of natural behavior and how such experiments afford control of the statistical structure of tasks, thereby allowing formal modeling. Finally, we suggest that a new exciting avenue using recently introduced inverse models may lead the way forward, as it recovers the intrinsic properties of human perception, cognition, and action, which are intertwined in natural behavior.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceVision, OcularVisual PerceptionCognitionHumansMarkov Chains

Identifiers

PMID41042030
PMCPMC12514976

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.