Cited by 75Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanismsMemory Processes and Influences

You think you know where you looked? You better look again

Open access
Võ, Melissa L.-H., Aizenman, Avigael M., Wolfe, Jeremy M.·2016·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

People are surprisingly bad at knowing where they have looked in a scene. We tested participants' ability to recall their own eye movements in 2 experiments using natural or artificial scenes. In each experiment, participants performed a change-detection (Exp.1) or search (Exp.2) task. On 25% of trials, after 3 seconds of viewing the scene, participants were asked to indicate where they thought they had just fixated. They responded by making mouse clicks on 12 locations in the unchanged scene. After 135 trials, observers saw 10 new scenes and were asked to put 12 clicks where they thought someone else would have looked. Although observers located their own fixations more successfully than a random model, their performance was no better than when they were guessing someone else's fixations. Performance with artificial scenes was worse, though judging one's own fixations was slightly superior. Even after repeating the fixation-location task on 30 scenes immediately after scene viewing, performance was far from the prediction of an ideal observer. Memory for our own fixation locations appears to add next to nothing beyond what common sense tells us about the likely fixations of others. These results have important implications for socially important visual search tasks. For example, a radiologist might think he has looked at "everything" in an image, but eye tracking data suggest that this is not so. Such shortcomings might be avoided by providing observers with better insights of where they have looked. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xhp0000264

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Human memory for already sampled locations is poor, resulting in less efficient and defective search behavior.

    “However, human memory for already sampled locations proved to be poor, resulting in both less efficient and defective search behavior: less efficient because they may look multiple times at the same location, defective because they may miss a significant proportion of the image [19 , 21 , 22] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Abstract and Discussion report poor memory for one's own fixation locations and discuss the possibility that substantial areas of an image go unexamined. They do not establish that this memory failure causes people to revisit the same locations or makes search less efficient; the image-coverage concern is presented as an applied implication, not a measured effect of the experiments. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Brainard DH 1997 The Psychophysics Toolbox Spatial Vision 10 4 433 436 http://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357 9176952 · DOI
  2. Bridgeman B Stark L 1991 Ocular proprioception and efference copy in registering visual direction Vision Research 31 11 1903 1913 http://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(91)90185-8 1771774 · DOI
  3. Drew T Võ MLH Olwal A Jacobson F Seltzer SE Wolfe JM 2013 Scanners and drillers: Characterizing expert visual search through volumetric images Journal of Vision 13 10 1 13 http://doi.org/10.1167/13.10.3 PMC3736761 23922445 · DOI
  4. Foulsham T Kingstone A 2013 Where have eye been? Observers can recognise their own fixations Perception 42 10 1085 1089 http://doi.org/10.1068/p7562 24494439 · DOI
  5. Ishihara I 1987 Ishihara’s tests for color-blindness (Conciseth ed.) Tokyo, Japan Kanehara & Co
  6. Kundel HL Nodine CF Carmody D 1978 Visual Scanning, Pattern Recognition and Decision-making in Pulmonary Nodule Detection Investigative Radiology 13 3 175 313 http://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3180ca7142 711391 · DOI
  7. Marti S Bayet L Dehaene S 2015 Subjective report of eye fixations during serial search Consciousness and Cognition 33 1 15 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.007 25497406 · DOI
  8. Martin H 2012 Where’s Waldo? The Wow Collection: Six amazing books and a puzzle Somerville, MA Candlewick Press
  9. Pelli DG 1997 The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies Spatial Vision 10 4 437 442 9176953

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Võ, M. L.-H., Aizenman, A. M., & Wolfe, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2016-10
Volume
42
Issue
10
Pages
1477-1481
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2525103930
Cited by
75
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (EY017001)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (VO 1683/2-1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
change detection, visual search, natural images, ideal observer, visual attention
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adult, Eye Movements, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Eye Movement Measurements, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review