Cited by 649Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Our Eyes do Not Always Go Where we Want Them to Go: Capture of the Eyes by New Objects

Theeuwes, Jan, Kramer, Arthur F., Hahn, Sowon, Irwin, David E.·1998·Psychological Science

Abstract

Observers make rapid eye movements to examine the world around them. Before an eye movement is made, attention is covertly shifted to the location of the object of interest. The eyes typically will land at the position at which attention is directed. Here we report that a goal-directed eye movement toward a uniquely colored object is disrupted by the appearance of a new but task-irrelevant object, unless subjects have a sufficient amount of time to focus their attention on the location of the target prior to the appearance of the new object. In many instances, the eyes started moving toward the new object before gaze started to shift to the color-singleton target. The eyes often landed for a very short period of time (25–150 ms) near the new object. The results suggest parallel programming of two saccades: one voluntary, goal-directed eye movement toward the color-singleton target and one stimulus-driven eye movement reflexively elicited by the appearance of the new object. Neuroanatomical structures responsible for parallel programming of saccades are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9280.00071

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Physically salient task-irrelevant distractors can disrupt top-down control and capture attention and eyes.

    “For example, research demonstrated that when searching for a given target, physically salient distractors that are otherwise irrelevant for the task at hand can disrupt top-down control and capture attention (“attentional capture”: Theeuwes, 1992; Yantis & Jonides, 1990) as well as our eyes (“oculomotor capture”: Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn & Irwin, 1998; Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn, Irwin, & Zelinsky, 1999”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Theeuwes et al., 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E.
Affiliations
  • Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Theeuwes, Jan
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
1998-09
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
379-385
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2118101423
Cited by
646
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 30
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
saccades, covert attention, attentional capture, gaze shifts, saccade latency, reflexive eye movements

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