Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41440777›Full record

ArticleJournal of eye movement research2025

Stimulus Center Bias Persists Irrespective of Its Position on the Display.

Rotem Mairon, Ohad Ben-Shahar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rotem MaironDepartment of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva 84105, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-5756-2464
Ohad Ben-ShaharDepartment of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva 84105, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-5346-152X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the earliest studies on human eye movements, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that observers fixate the center of visual stimuli more than their periphery, regardless of visual content. Subsequent research suggested only little effect of typical biases in experimental setups, such as observer's position relative to the screen or the relative location of the cue marker. While comparative studies of the screen center vs. stimulus center revealed that both conspire in the process, much of the prior art is still confounded by experimental details that leave the origins of the center-bias debatable. We thus propose methodological novelties to rigorously test the effect of the stimulus center, isolated from other factors. In particular, eye movements were tracked in a free-viewing experiment in which stimuli were presented at a wide range of horizontal displacements from a counterbalanced cue marker in a wide visual field. Stimuli spanned diverse natural scene images to allow inherent biases to surface in the pooled data. Various analyses of the first few fixations show a robust bias toward the center of the stimulus, independent of its position on the display, but affected by its distance to the cue marker. Center bias is thus a tangible phenomenon related to the stimulus.

Indexed as

center biascomputational saliencyeye movements

Identifiers

PMID41440777
PMCPMC12733640

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.