Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42678233›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

How field of view impacts visual search strategies.

Kaitlin Moat, Philip Grove, Stefanie Becker, Guy Wallis

Abstract read
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. 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

4 authors.

Kaitlin MoatSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Philip GroveSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Stefanie BeckerSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Guy WallisSchool of Human Movement & Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionVisual FieldsVisual PerceptionAdultEye MovementsFemaleFixation, OcularHead MovementsHumansMalePhotic StimulationVirtual RealityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42678233
PMCPMC13549409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.