ArticleJournal of vision2026
How field of view impacts visual search strategies.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When searching for objects, our sensory resources are limited. According to the zoom lens model of attention, the visual system can flexibly adapt the size of the attentional spotlight applied to an array of items depending on task difficulty. When search tasks are relatively straightforward, attention can be distributed widely across space to process several items simultaneously. However, when discrimination becomes more difficult, the attentional spotlight constricts to concentrate resources to a limited area resulting in the processing of only one or very few items simultaneously at any one time. The present study aimed to empirically test the zoom lens account by assessing search performance while systematically altering the visible area in the search display (field of view [FOV]). We presented two search tasks of contrasting difficulty in a virtual reality environment with a head-contingent display. When the FOV became smaller, there were no differences in search times between the two search tasks, a result which seems to contradict the predictions of the zoom lens model. The zoom lens model predicts that restricted viewing in a demanding search task should exact a smaller cost because of the presence of the smaller attentional window. However, we did not find any evidence of such an effect. Results from an analysis of head and eye movements also suggested that when using both fixations and head movements to scan their environment, participants used head movements to reveal new areas of the visual scene in a manner largely disconnected from classic eye movement and attentional processes. Once the head came to rest, attentional shifts and eye movements were used to search within the newly revealed area.
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.