Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920147›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

Saccades to spatially extended objects: The roles of observer goals and part-structure cues in determining within-object landing position.

Andrew Hollingworth, Cathleen M Moore

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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.

Andrew HollingworthDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Cathleen M MooreDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How is the perceptual representation of a spatially extended object translated into a discrete saccade vector? A wealth of evidence suggests that the object center of area (COA) is computed as a default index. However, saccades are also sensitive to the location of task-relevant information, which does not always appear at the COA. In addition, task-relevant object regions often correspond to discrete object parts. Here, we manipulated part-structure cues and participant goals to examine their potential interaction in controlling within-object landing position. In Experiment 1, participants executed saccades to spatially extended objects in a visual search task. Within-object landing position was systematically influenced by both factors: (1) a bias toward locations known to contain task-relevant information, and (2) a bias toward regions of part segmentation. A rapid orienting task to a single, abruptly appearing object (Experiment 2) showed only the latter bias, suggesting that unlike the strategic bias, the segmentation bias was driven primarily by physical stimulus properties. Finally, the two biases combined, such that the largest effect of strategy was observed when the relevant location coincided with a discrete object part. Together, the results indicate that saccade target selection was controlled by the combined effect of goal-directed processes, segmentation, and a default bias toward the COA.

Indexed as

CuesForm PerceptionGoalsSaccadesSpace PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41920147
PMCPMC13050015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.