ArticleNature communications2025
Eye movements during free viewing to maximize scene understanding.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptual priorities shape individual gaze patterns during naturalistic visual attention.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Distinct roles of central and peripheral vision in rapid scene understanding.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- The Cross-Linguistic Coordination of Overt Attention and Speech Production as Evidence for a Language of Vision.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Detection, Inspection, Return: An Object-Based Classification and Metric of Fixations in Complex Scenes.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Eye movements during free viewing to maximize scene understanding.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Individual gaze predicts individual scene descriptions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What humans look at and do when freely viewing a scene is not well understood. We measure observer eye movements under different instructions while participants view a customized set of image pairs containing small visual alterations that greatly change scene interpretation (Winograd images). We show that free-viewing fixations resemble those of observers describing scenes but differ from those of observers counting or searching for objects. Fixations are more often directed toward people and objects whose removal most alters scene interpretation, rather than toward the most salient or meaningfully judged regions (meaning maps), or objects perceived to be grasped or gazed at. Small image changes that modify scene understanding (Winograd images), but not salience or meaning maps, alter fixation patterns. By instructing observers to describe scenes while fixating on objects either relevant or irrelevant to scene understanding, we demonstrate that free-viewing eye movements are functionally important for accurate scene comprehension. Thus, an important human default task of free viewing eye movements is to comprehend scenes.
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.