Literature DB >> 24396045

Real and implied motion at the center of gaze.

Alper Açik1, Andreas Bartel, Peter König.   

Abstract

Even though the dynamicity of our environment is a given, much of what we know on fixation selection comes from studies of static scene viewing. We performed a direct comparison of fixation selection on static and dynamic visual stimuli and investigated how far identical mechanisms drive these. We recorded eye movements while participants viewed movie clips of natural scenery and static frames taken from the same movies. Both were presented in the same high spatial resolution (1080 × 1920 pixels). The static condition allowed us to check whether local movement features computed from movies are salient even when presented as single frames. We observed that during the first second of viewing, movement and static features are equally salient in both conditions. Furthermore, predictability of fixations based on movement features decreased faster when viewing static frames as compared with viewing movie clips. Yet even during the later portion of static-frame viewing, the predictive value of movement features was still high above chance. Moreover, we demonstrated that, whereas the sets of movement and static features were statistically dependent within these sets, respectively, no dependence was observed between the two sets. Based on these results, we argue that implied motion is predictive of fixation similarly to real movement and that the onset of motion in natural stimuli is more salient than ongoing movement is. The present results allow us to address to what extent and when static image viewing is similar to the perception of a dynamic environment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  eye movements; motion perception; natural scene statistics; visual attention

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24396045     DOI: 10.1167/14.1.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  57 in total

1.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory.

Authors:  E K Vogel; G F Woodman; S J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model.

Authors:  M Usher; J L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Competition increases binding errors in visual working memory.

Authors:  Stephen M Emrich; Susanne Ferber
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  A power-law model of psychological memory strength in short- and long-term recognition.

Authors:  Chris Donkin; Robert M Nosofsky
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-04-23

Review 5.  The structure of short-term memory scanning: an investigation using response time distribution models.

Authors:  Chris Donkin; Robert M Nosofsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-06

6.  Visual working memory for amplitude-modulated shapes.

Authors:  Viljami R Salmela; Meri Lähde; Jussi Saarinen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  What's "up"? Working memory contents can bias orientation processing.

Authors:  Lisa Scocchia; Guido Marco Cicchini; Jochen Triesch
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey.

Authors:  M N Shadlen; W T Newsome
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Visual working memory contents bias ambiguous structure from motion perception.

Authors:  Lisa Scocchia; Matteo Valsecchi; Karl R Gegenfurtner; Jochen Triesch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Rapid forgetting prevented by retrospective attention cues.

Authors:  Yoni Pertzov; Paul M Bays; Sabine Joseph; Masud Husain
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  2 in total

1.  Visual Analytics of Gaze Data with Standard Multimedia Players.

Authors:  Julius Schöning; Christopher Gundler; Gunther Heidemann; Peter König; Ulf Krumnack
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 0.957

2.  Visual search in naturalistic scenes from foveal to peripheral vision: A comparison between dynamic and static displays.

Authors:  Antje Nuthmann; Teresa Canas-Bajo
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.