Back

Cues for predictive eye movements in naturalistic scenes

Goettker, A.; Borgerding, N.; Leeske, L.; Gegenfurnter, K. R.

2023-04-21 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.04.21.537766 bioRxiv
Show abstract

We previously compared following of the same trajectories with eye movements, but either as an isolated target or embedded in a naturalistic scene, in this case the movement of a puck in an ice hockey game. We observed that the oculomotor system was able to leverage the contextual cues available in the naturalistic scene to produce predictive eye movements. In this study we wanted to assess which factors are critical for achieving this predictive advantage by manipulating four factors: the expertise of the viewers, the amount of available peripheral information, and contextual and kinematic cues. The more peripheral information became available (by manipulating the area of the video that was visible), the better the predictions of all observers. However, expert ice hockey fans were consistently more accurate and better at predicting than novices and also benefitted more from additional peripheral information. Artificial contextual cues about the position of the players did not lead to a predictive advantage, whereas impairing the causal structure of kinematic cues by playing the video in reverse led to a severe impairment. When the videos were flipped vertically to introduce more difficult kinematic cues, predictive behavior was comparable to when observers watching the original videos. Together, these results demonstrate that when contextual information is available in naturalistic scenes, the oculomotor system is successfully integrating them, and is not only relying on low-level information about the target trajectory. Critical factors for successful prediction seem to be the amount of available information, experience with the stimuli and the availability of intact kinematic cues for player movements.

Published in Journal of Vision (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.