This paper introduces the “hybrid foraging” paradigm. In typical visual search tasks, observers search for one instance of one target among distractors. In hybrid search, observers search through visual displays for one instance of any of several types of target held in memory. In foraging search, observers collect multiple instances of a single target type from visual displays. Combining these paradigms, in hybrid foraging tasks observers search visual displays for multiple instances of any of several types of target (as might be the case in searching the kitchen for dinner ingredients or an X-ray for different pathologies). In the present experiment, observers held 8–64 targets objects in memory. They viewed displays of 60–105 randomly moving photographs of objects and used the computer mouse to collect multiple targets before choosing to move to the next display. Rather than selecting at random among available targets, observers tended to collect items in runs of one target type. Reaction time (RT) data indicate searching again for the same item is more efficient than searching for any other targets, held in memory. Observers were trying to maximize collection rate. As a result, and consistent with optimal foraging theory, they tended to leave 25–33% of targets uncollected when moving to the next screen/patch. The pattern of RTs shows that while observers were collecting a target item, they had already begun searching memory and the visual display for additional targets, making the hybrid foraging task a useful way to investigate the interaction of visual and memory search.

No abstract

People are surprisingly bad at knowing where they have looked in a scene. We tested participants’ ability to recall their own eye movements in two experiments using natural or artificial scenes. In each experiment, participants performed a change-detection (Exp.1) or search (Exp.2) task. On 25% of trials, after 3 seconds of viewing the scene, participants were asked to indicate where they thought they had just fixated. They responded by making mouse clicks on 12 locations in the unchanged scene. After 135 trials, observers saw 10 new scenes and were asked to put 12 clicks where they thought someone else would have looked. While observers located their own fixations more successfully than a random model, their performance was no better than when they were guessing someone else’s fixations. Performance with artificial scenes was worse, though judging one’s own fixations was slightly superior. Even after repeating the fixation-location task on 30 scenes immediately after scene viewing, performance was far from the prediction of an ideal observer. Memory for our own fixation locations appears to add next to nothing beyond what common sense tells us about the likely fixations of others. These results have important implications for socially important visual search tasks. For example, a radiologist might think he has looked at “everything” in an image, but eye tracking data suggest that this is not so. Such shortcomings might be avoided by providing observers with better insights of where they have looked.

In Hybrid Foraging tasks, observers search for multiple instances of several types of target. Collecting all the dirty laundry and kitchenware out of a child's room would be a real-world example. How are such foraging episodes structured? A series of four experiments shows that selection of one item from the display makes it more likely that the next item will be of the same type. This pattern holds if the targets are defined by basic features like color and shape but not if they are defined by their identity (e.g., the letters p & d). Additionally, switching between target types during search is expensive in time, with longer response times between successive selections if the target type changes than if they are the same. Finally, the decision to leave a screen/patch for the next screen in these foraging tasks is imperfectly consistent with the predictions of optimal foraging theory. The results of these hybrid foraging studies cast new light on the ways in which prior selection history guides subsequent visual search in general.

Abstract. When searching through volumetric images [e.g., computed tomography (CT)], radiologists appear to use two different search strategies: "drilling" (restrict eye movements to a small region of the image while quickly scrolling through slices), or "scanning" (search over large areas at a given depth before moving on to the next slice). To computationally identify the type of image information that is used in these two strategies, 23 naïve observers were instructed with either "drilling" or "scanning" when searching for target T's in 20 volumes of faux lung CTs. We computed saliency maps using both classical two-dimensional (2-D) saliency, and a three-dimensional (3-D) dynamic saliency that captures the characteristics of scrolling through slices. Comparing observers' gaze distributions with the saliency maps showed that search strategy alters the type of saliency that attracts fixations. Drillers' fixations aligned better with dynamic saliency and scanners with 2-D saliency. The computed saliency was greater for detected targets than for missed targets. Similar results were observed in data from 19 radiologists who searched five stacks of clinical chest CTs for lung nodules. Dynamic saliency may be superior to the 2-D saliency for detecting targets embedded in volumetric images, and thus "drilling" may be more efficient than "scanning."