Christopher A. Dickinson

Coordinating Cognition: The Costs and Benefits of Shared Gaze During Collaborative Search

Collaboration has its benefits, but coordination has its costs. We explored the potential for remotely located pairs of people to collaborate during visual search, using shared gaze and speech. Pairs of searchers wearing eyetrackers jointly performed an O-in-Qs search task alone, or in one of three collaboration conditions: shared gaze (with one searcher seeing a gaze-cursor indicating where the other was looking, and vice versa), shared-voice (by speaking to each other), and shared-gaze-plus-voice (by using both gaze-cursors and speech). Although collaborating pairs performed better than solitary searchers, search in the shared gaze condition was best of all: twice as fast and efficient as solitary search. People can successfully communicate and coordinate their searching labor using shared gaze alone. Strikingly, shared gaze search was even faster than shared-gaze-plus-voice search; speaking incurred substantial coordination costs. We conclude that shared gaze affords a highly efficient method of coordinating parallel activity in a time-critical spatial task.

Spatial Asymmetries in Viewing and Remembering Scenes: Consequences of an Attentional Bias?

Given a single fixation, memory for scenes containing salient objects near both the left and right view boundaries exhibited a rightward bias in boundary extension (Experiment 1). On each trial, a 500-msec picture and 2.5-sec mask were followed by a boundary adjustment task. Observers extended boundaries 5% more on the right than on the left. Might this reflect an asymmetric distribution of attention? In Experiments 2A and 2B, free viewing of pictures revealed that first saccades were more often leftward (62%) than rightward (38%). In Experiment 3, 500-msec pictures were interspersed with 2.5-sec masks. A subsequent object recognition memory test revealed better memory for left-side objects. Scenes were always mirror reversed for half the observers, thus ruling out idiosyncratic scene compositions as the cause of these asymmetries. Results suggest an unexpected leftward bias of attention that selectively enhanced the representations, causing a smaller boundary extension error and better object memory on the views’ left sides.

False Memory 1/20th of a Second Later What the Early Onset of Boundary Extension Reveals About Perception

Errors of commission are thought to be caused by heavy memory loads, confusing information, lengthy retention intervals, or some combination of these factors. We report false memory beyond the boundaries of a view, boundary extension, after less than 1/20th of a second. Photographs of scenes were interrupted by a 42-ms or 250-ms mask, 250 ms into viewing, before reappearing or being replaced with a different view (Experiment 1). Postinterruption photographs that were unchanged were rated as closer up than the original views; when the photographs were changed, the same pair of closer-up and wider-angle views was rated as more similar when the closer view was first, rather than second. Thus, observers remembered preinterruption views with extended boundaries. Results were replicated when the interruption included a saccade (Experiment 2). The brevity of these interruptions has implications for visual scanning; it also challenges the traditional distinction between perception and memory. We offer an alternative conceptualization that shows how source monitoring can explain false memory after an interruption briefer than an eyeblink.

Marking rejected distractors: A gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search

There is a debate among search theorists as to whether search exploits a memory for rejected distractors. We addressed this question by monitoring eye movements and explicitly marking objects visited by gaze during search. If search is memoryless, markers might be used to reduce distractor reinspections and improve search efficiency, relative to a no-marking baseline. However, if search already uses distractor memory, there should be no differences between marking and no-marking conditions. In four experiments, with stimuli ranging from Os and Qs to realistic scenes, two consistent data patterns emerged: (1) Marking rejected distractors produced no systematic benefit for search efficiency, as measured by reinspections, reaction times, or errors, and (2) distractor reinspection rates were, overall, extremely low. These results suggest that search uses a memory for rejected distractors, at least in those many real-world search tasks in which gaze is free to move.

Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory

Do refixations serve a rehearsal function in visual working memory (VWM)? We analyzed refixations from observers freely viewing multiobject scenes. An eyetracker was used to limit the viewing of a scene to a specified number of objects fixated after the target (intervening objects), followed by a four-alternative forced choice recognition test. Results showed that the probability of target refixation increased with the number of fixated intervening objects, and these refixations produced a 16% accuracy benefit over the first five intervening-object conditions. Additionally, refixations most frequently occurred after fixations on only one to two other objects, regardless of the intervening-object condition. These behaviors could not be explained by random or minimally constrained computational models; a VWM component was required to completely describe these data. We explain these findings in terms of a monitor–refixate rehearsal system: The activations of object representations in VWM are monitored, with refixations occurring when these activations decrease suddenly.

Fixating picture boundaries does not eliminate boundary extension: Implications for scene representation

Observers frequently remember seeing more of a scene than was shown (boundary extension). Does this reflect a lack of eye fixations to the boundary region? Single-object photographs were presented for 14–15 s each. Main objects were either whole or slightly cropped by one boundary, creating a salient marker of boundary placement. All participants expected a memory test, but only half were informed that boundary memory would be tested. Participants in both conditions made multiple fixations to the boundary region and the cropped region during study. Demonstrating the importance of these regions, test-informed participants fixated them sooner, longer, and more frequently. Boundary ratings (Experiment 1) and border adjustment tasks (Experiments 2–4) revealed boundary extension in both conditions. The error was reduced, but not eliminated, in the test-informed condition. Surprisingly, test knowledge and multiple fixations to the salient cropped region, during study and at test, were insufficient to overcome boundary extension on the cropped side. Results are discussed within a traditional visual-centric framework versus a multisource model of scene perception.

New Evidence for Strategic Differences between Static and Dynamic Search Tasks: An Individual Observer Analysis of Eye Movements.

Two experiments are reported that further explore the processes underlying dynamic search. In Experiment 1, observers’ oculomotor behavior was monitored while they searched for a randomly oriented T among oriented L distractors under static and dynamic viewing conditions. Despite similar search slopes, eye movements were less frequent and more spatially constrained under dynamic viewing relative to static, with misses also increasing more with target eccentricity in the dynamic condition. These patterns suggest that dynamic search involves a form of sit-and-wait strategy in which search is restricted to a small group of items surrounding fixation. To evaluate this interpretation, we developed a computational model of a sit-and-wait process hypothesized to underlie dynamic search. In Experiment 2 we tested this model by varying fixation position in the display and found that display positions optimized for a sit-and-wait strategy resulted in higher d′ values relative to a less optimal location. We conclude that different strategies, and therefore underlying processes, are used to search static and dynamic displays.

The physical sacrifice of thinking: Investigating the relationship between thinking and physical activity in everyday life

Physical activity level is an important contributor to overall human health and obesity. Research has shown that humans possess a number of traits that influence their physical activity level including social cognition. We examined whether the trait of “need for cognition” was associated with daily physical activity levels. We recruited individuals who were high or low in need for cognition and measured their physical activity level in 30-second epochs over a 1-week period. The overall findings showed that low-need-for-cognition individuals were more physically active, but this difference was most pronounced during the 5-day work week and lessened during the weekend.

Boundary extension in the transsaccadic representation of layout

Introduction Typically, viewers remember seeing beyond the boundaries of the current view (Boundary Extension [BE]; Intraub & Richardson, 1989) BE is specific to memory for scenes, as opposed to other types of displays (Intraub et al., 1998), and neuroimaging evidence for BE has been observed specifically in sceneselective regions of the brain (PPA, RSC; Park et al., 2007) BE might facilitate integration of successive views, but ... to do so it would have to be available during the next fixation Accordingly, it would need to occur following a retention interval as brief as a saccade’s duration, and it would need to survive a saccade Here we examine the questions of 1) how rapidly following stimulus offset BE is available and 2) whether it is included in transsaccadic memory when tested immediately after a saccade