Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis reveals distinct fixation patterns in complex scenes, indicating dynamic viewing strategies across different contexts.
Analyses of human gaze behaviour towards complex scenes typically aim to explain heatmaps or scan-paths. While heatmaps lack temporal information, scan-paths aim for a level of detail which often is impractical. We introduce a novel approach, based on the premise that most fixations target objects and do so in meaningfully different ways, depending on temporal context: Detection fixations (D) foveate an object for the first time; Inspection fixations (I) successively target object details; and Return fixations (R) revisit a previously fixated object after going elsewhere. To test the hypothesis that these classes capture distinct fixation profiles, we reanalysed a large dataset of scene fixations. We computed separate heatmaps for D, I, and R and found significantly higher inter-observer consistency within than between classes. Across fixations landing on different semantic features, the proportion of D, I, and R fixations varied consistently, and a semantic salience model trained to predict each type of fixations independently learned diverging distributions of feature weights. Further, we found a shift from D to I and R across viewing time, in line with previous findings on ambient and focal viewing modes. We tested and confirmed that the dynamics of this shift varied as a function of trial duration. Finally, we highlight the recent application of the D, I, R classification as a metric for gaze comparisons in the context of dynamic scenes, in which scan-path similarity metrics fail. We propose the D, I, and R classification as a computationally simple yet powerful tool to classify spatiotemporal aspects of scene fixations in an object-based and intuitive manner and provide well-documented code to implement it. Future research may explore potential functional differences between D, I, and R fixations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: