ArticleCommunications psychology2026
Narrative context shifts gaze from visual to semantic salience.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Humans make over a hundred thousand eye movements daily to gather visual information. But what determines where we look? Current computational models typically link gaze behaviour to visual features of isolated images, but we know that eye movements are also strongly shaped by cognitive goals: Observers gather information that helps them to understand, rather than just represent, the world. Within this framework, observers should focus more on information that updates one's understanding of the environment, and less on what is purely visually salient. Here we tested this hypothesis using a free-viewing paradigm of narratives where we experimentally manipulated the meaningfulness of temporal context by either presenting pictures in a coherent, i.e. correct, order, or in a temporally shuffled order. We developed a computational approach to quantify which visual information is semantically salient (i.e., important for understanding): we separately obtained language narratives for images in stories, and computed the contextual surprisal of visual objects using a large language model. The ability of this semantic saliency model in explaining gaze behaviour was compared to a state-of-the art model of visual saliency (DeepGaze-II). We found that individuals (N = 42) looked relatively more often and more quickly at semantically salient objects when images were presented in coherent compared to shuffled order. In contrast, visual salience did not better account for gaze behaviour in coherent than shuffled order. These findings highlight how internal contextual models guide visual sampling and demonstrate that language models could offer a powerful tool for capturing gaze behavior in richer, meaningful settings.
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.