Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes

Open access
Dorr, M., Martinetz, T., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Barth, E.·2010·Journal of Vision

Abstract

How similar are the eye movement patterns of different subjects when free viewing dynamic natural scenes? We collected a large database of eye movements from 54 subjects on 18 high-resolution videos of outdoor scenes and measured their variability using the Normalized Scanpath Saliency, which we extended to the temporal domain. Even though up to about 80% of subjects looked at the same image region in some video parts, variability usually was much greater. Eye movements on natural movies were then compared with eye movements in several control conditions. "Stop-motion" movies had almost identical semantic content as the original videos but lacked continuous motion. Hollywood action movie trailers were used to probe the upper limit of eye movement coherence that can be achieved by deliberate camera work, scene cuts, etc. In a "repetitive" condition, subjects viewed the same movies ten times each over the course of 2 days. Results show several systematic differences between conditions both for general eye movement parameters such as saccade amplitude and fixation duration and for eye movement variability. Most importantly, eye movements on static images are initially driven by stimulus onset effects and later, more so than on continuous videos, by subject-specific idiosyncrasies; eye movements on Hollywood movies are significantly more coherent than those on natural movies. We conclude that the stimuli types often used in laboratory experiments, static images and professionally cut material, are not very representative of natural viewing behavior. All stimuli and gaze data are publicly available at http://www.inb.uni-luebeck.de/tools-demos/gaze.

Overview

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 · 10.1167/10.10.28

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Dorr, M., Martinetz, T., Gegenfurtner, K. R., & Barth, E.
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2010-08-26
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
28-28
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105964837
Cited by
450
References
43
FWCI
22.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/10.10.28
The paper
Dorr, M., Martinetz, T., Gegenfurtner, K. R., & Barth, E. (2010). Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.10.28

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.