» Articles » PMID: 36413523

Look Twice: A Generalist Computational Model Predicts Return Fixations Across Tasks and Species

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2022 Nov 22
PMID 36413523
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Primates constantly explore their surroundings via saccadic eye movements that bring different parts of an image into high resolution. In addition to exploring new regions in the visual field, primates also make frequent return fixations, revisiting previously foveated locations. We systematically studied a total of 44,328 return fixations out of 217,440 fixations. Return fixations were ubiquitous across different behavioral tasks, in monkeys and humans, both when subjects viewed static images and when subjects performed natural behaviors. Return fixations locations were consistent across subjects, tended to occur within short temporal offsets, and typically followed a 180-degree turn in saccadic direction. To understand the origin of return fixations, we propose a proof-of-principle, biologically-inspired and image-computable neural network model. The model combines five key modules: an image feature extractor, bottom-up saliency cues, task-relevant visual features, finite inhibition-of-return, and saccade size constraints. Even though there are no free parameters that are fine-tuned for each specific task, species, or condition, the model produces fixation sequences resembling the universal properties of return fixations. These results provide initial steps towards a mechanistic understanding of the trade-off between rapid foveal recognition and the need to scrutinize previous fixation locations.

Citing Articles

Motor "laziness" constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks.

Burlingham C, Sendhilnathan N, Komogortsev O, Murdison T, Proulx M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(12):e2302239121.

PMID: 38470927 PMC: 10962974. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2302239121.


Inactivation of face-selective neurons alters eye movements when free viewing faces.

Azadi R, Lopez E, Taubert J, Patterson A, Afraz A Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(3):e2309906121.

PMID: 38198528 PMC: 10801883. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2309906121.


Refixation behavior in naturalistic viewing: Methods, mechanisms, and neural correlates.

Nikolaev A, Meghanathan R, van Leeuwen C Atten Percept Psychophys. 2024; 87(1):25-49.

PMID: 38169029 PMC: 11845542. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02836-9.


Planning to revisit: Neural activity in refixation precursors.

Nikolaev A, Ehinger B, Meghanathan R, van Leeuwen C J Vis. 2023; 23(7):2.

PMID: 37405737 PMC: 10327960. DOI: 10.1167/jov.23.7.2.


Visual Search Asymmetry: Deep Nets and Humans Share Similar Inherent Biases.

Kant Gupta S, Zhang M, Wu C, Wolfe J, Kreiman G Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2022; 34:6946-6959.

PMID: 36062138 PMC: 9436507.

References
1.
Potter M . Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1976; 2(5):509-22. View

2.
Hayhoe M, Bensinger D, Ballard D . Task constraints in visual working memory. Vision Res. 1998; 38(1):125-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00116-8. View

3.
Schwetlick L, Rothkegel L, Trukenbrod H, Engbert R . Modeling the effects of perisaccadic attention on gaze statistics during scene viewing. Commun Biol. 2020; 3(1):727. PMC: 7708631. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-020-01429-8. View

4.
Bisley J . The neural basis of visual attention. J Physiol. 2010; 589(Pt 1):49-57. PMC: 3039259. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.192666. View

5.
Zelinsky G . A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychol Rev. 2008; 115(4):787-835. PMC: 2577318. DOI: 10.1037/a0013118. View