Back

Looking Across Tasks: Domain-General and Task-Specific Gaze Behaviours in Spatial Cognition

Wu, Z.; Aguilar Ramirez, D. E.; Gonzalez, C. L. R.

2026-09-28 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.09.22.753562 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Eye movements have been shown to reveal the cognitive processes underlying spatial ability, but most studies investigating gaze behaviour in spatial cognition use a single, screen-based task. Therefore, it is unknown whether these gaze behaviours are preserved across naturalistic task environments, or whether their relationship with spatial performance is domain-general or task-specific. The present study tested whether established gaze behaviours are preserved and generalizable across diverse, naturalistic spatial tasks. N = 30 young adults completed three naturalistic spatial tasks varying in perceptual, cognitive, and visuomotor demands: Q-bitz, the Brick Building Task (BBT), and the Mental Rotation Test (MRT). Gaze was measured using the Pupil Labs Neon eye tracker. Within-task analyses were conducted to assess whether gaze behaviours were preserved, and cross-task analyses were conducted to assess the generalizability of preserved gaze behaviours. Within-task analyses identified source inspection and transition rate as gaze behaviours that were consistently sensitive to changing task demands. Cross-task analyses showed that source fixation duration was a domain-general predictor of performance, whereas the relationship between transition rate and performance differed by task. Exploratory sex-separated analyses also suggested a more consistent gaze-performance relationship in males. These findings show that source fixation duration may represent a common cognitive process underlying performance across naturalistic spatial tasks.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.