Evaluating the influence of a fixated object’s spatio-temporal properties on gaze control

Abstract

Despite recent progress in understanding the factors that determine where an observer will eventually look in a scene, we know very little about what determines how an observer decides where he or she will look next. We investigated the potential roles of object-level representations in the direction of subsequent shifts of gaze. In five experiments, we considered whether a fixated object's spatial orientation, implied motion, and perceived animacy affect gaze direction when shifting overt attention to another object. Eye movements directed away from a fixated object were biased in the direction it faced. This effect was not modified by implying a particular direction of inanimate or animate motion. Together, these results suggest that decisions regarding where one should look next are in part determined by the spatial, but not by the implied temporal, properties of the object at the current locus of fixation.Keywords Eye movements . Visual attention . Scene perception . Gaze direction . Spatial reference frames . Implied motion . AnimacyWe move our eyes three to four times each second as we investigate our visual surroundings. Each one of these eye movements requires a deceptively simple decision: Where should we look next? Despite recent progress in understanding the factors that determine where an observer will eventually look in a scene, we know very little about what determines how an observer decides where he or she will specifically look next. Some evidence suggests that visual salience (Itti & Koch, 2000), occulomotor biases (Tatler & Vincent, 2009) (Henderson, 2011). In this article, we consider the degree to which one's representation of a fixated object's spatio-temporal properties influences the direction in which a subsequent eye movement will travel.When viewing a scene, an observer forms several representations regarding objects' spatial position and temporal dynamics. For example, we use spatial reference frames to define objects' fronts, backs, left sides, right sides, and so forth. By doing so, we are able to describe a chair as Bfacing^a certain direction, being to the left of a table, or being behind a stool. In addition to defining the current spatial position of an object in a scene, it is also important to consider the ways in which an object's position might be altered over time. For example, some objects may be more or less likely to move. Similarly, considering the potential causes of an object's motion allows one to predict future events. Some objects may require an external force to act upon them, whereas others may be capable of volitional self-movement. One's assignment of reference frames (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky & Jiang, 1998;Logan, 1996;Logan & Sadler, 1996), representation of any possible motion (e.g., Gervais, Reed, Beall, & Roberts, 2010), and interpretation of animacy (e.g., Pratt, Radulescu, Guo, & Abrams, 2010) each affect covert aspects of attentional control. However, their impacts on overt attention (i.e., gaze control) have not been investigated.

Feature integration is unaffected by saccade landing point, even when saccades land outside of the range of regular oculomotor variance

“…In these trials a salient distractor is presented at the same time as the saccade target. Prior research has shown that by presenting a salient object near a saccade target, cause saccades to land at the geometric mean of these objects (Coren & Hoenig, 1972;Cronin & Brockmole, 2016;Van der Stigchel & Nijboer, 2011). We placed the distractor object at 68 from the target.…”

Sensory Continuity Across Eye-movements Forward to a model of visual perception

“…In these trials a salient distractor is presented at the same time as the saccade target. Prior research has shown that by presenting a salient object near a saccade target, cause saccades to land at the geometric mean of these objects [191][192][193]. We placed the distractor object at 6° from the target.…”