» Articles » PMID: 32926071

Where the Eyes Wander: The Relationship Between Mind Wandering and Fixation Allocation to Visually Salient and Semantically Informative Static Scene Content

Overview
Journal J Vis
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2020 Sep 14
PMID 32926071
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Vision is crucial for many everyday activities, but the mind is not always focused on what the eyes see. Mind wandering occurs frequently and is associated with attenuated visual and cognitive processing of external information. Corresponding changes in gaze behavior-namely, fewer, longer, and more dispersed fixations-suggest a shift in how the visual system samples external information. Using three computational models of visual salience and two innovative approaches for measuring semantic informativeness, the current work assessed whether these changes reflect how the visual system prioritizes visually salient and semantically informative scene content, two major determinants in most theoretical frameworks and computational models of gaze control. Findings showed that, in a static scene viewing task, fixations were allocated to scene content that was more visually salient 10 seconds prior to probe-caught, self-reported mind wandering compared to self-reported attentive viewing. The relationship between mind wandering and semantic content was more equivocal, with weaker evidence that fixations are more likely to fall on locally informative scene regions. This indicates that the visual system is still able to discriminate visually salient and semantically informative scene content during mind wandering and may fixate on such information more frequently than during attentive viewing. Theoretical implications are discussed in light of these findings.

Citing Articles

Spontaneous associative thought may facilitate scene-gist memory via implicit scene-labeling.

Baror S, Aminoff E, Kenett Y Mem Cognit. 2024; .

PMID: 39623251 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01672-y.


Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not.

Hayes T, Henderson J Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84(3):647-654.

PMID: 35138579 PMC: 11128357. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02395-x.


Scene meaningfulness guides eye movements even during mind-wandering.

Zhang H, Anderson N, Miller K Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021; 84(4):1130-1150.

PMID: 34553314 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02370-6.


Meaning maps capture the density of local semantic features in scenes: A reply to Pedziwiatr, Kümmerer, Wallis, Bethge & Teufel (2021).

Henderson J, Hayes T, Peacock C, Rehrig G Cognition. 2021; 214:104742.

PMID: 33892912 PMC: 11166323. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104742.

References
1.
Marsman J, Renken R, Haak K, Cornelissen F . Linking cortical visual processing to viewing behavior using fMRI. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; 7:109. PMC: 3866383. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00109. View

2.
Faber M, Krasich K, Bixler R, Brockmole J, DMello S . The eye-mind wandering link: Identifying gaze indices of mind wandering across tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020; 46(10):1201-1221. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000743. View

3.
Nuthmann A, Henderson J . Object-based attentional selection in scene viewing. J Vis. 2010; 10(8):20. DOI: 10.1167/10.8.20. View

4.
Smallwood J, Beach E, Schooler J, Handy T . Going AWOL in the brain: mind wandering reduces cortical analysis of external events. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 20(3):458-69. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20037. View

5.
Kam J, Dao E, Farley J, Fitzpatrick K, Smallwood J, Schooler J . Slow fluctuations in attentional control of sensory cortex. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010; 23(2):460-70. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21443. View