Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41874138›Full record

ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026

A Data-Driven Approach for Comparing Gaze Allocation Across Conditions.

Jack Prosser, Anna Metzger, Matteo Toscani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Jack ProsserSchool of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-4101-9819
Anna MetzgerSchool of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.
Matteo ToscaniSchool of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.

Funding

British Academy SRG2324\240833
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gaze analysis often relies on hypothesised, subjectively defined regions of interest (ROIs) or heatmaps: ROIs enable condition comparisons but reduce objectivity and exploration; while heatmaps avoid this, they require many pixel-wise comparisons, making differences hard to detect. Here, we propose an advanced data-driven approach for analysing gaze behaviour. We use DNNs (adapted versions of AlexNet) to classify conditions from gaze patterns, paired with reverse correlation to show where and how gaze differs between conditions. We test our approach on data from an experiment investigating the effects of object-specific sounds (e.g., church bell ringing) on gaze allocation. ROI-based analysis shows a significant difference between conditions (congruent sound, no sound, phase-scrambled sound and pink noise), with more gaze allocation on sound-associated objects in the congruent sound condition. However, as expected, significance depends on the definition of the ROIs. Heatmaps show some unclear qualitative differences, but none are significant after correcting for pixelwise comparisons. We showed that, for some scenes, the DNNs could classify the task based on individual fixations with accuracy significantly higher than chance. Our approach shows that sound can alter gaze allocation, revealing task-specific, non-trivial strategies: fixations are not always drawn to the sound source but shift away from salient features, sometimes falling between salient features and the sound source. Crucially, such fixation strategies could not be revealed using a traditional hypothesis-driven approach. Overall, the method is objective, data-driven, and enables clear comparisons of conditions.

Indexed as

cross-modal attentiondata-driven analysissaliency

Identifiers

PMID41874138
PMCPMC13010756

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.