The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions
Open accessAbstract
Observers show a marked tendency to fixate the center of the screen when viewing scenes on computer monitors. This is often assumed to arise because image features tend to be biased toward the center of natural images and fixations are correlated with image features. A common alternative explanation is that experiments typically use a central pre-trial fixation marker, and observers tend to make small amplitude saccades. In the present study, the central bias was explored by dividing images post hoc according to biases in their image feature distributions. Central biases could not be explained by motor biases for making small saccades and were found irrespective of the distribution of image features. When the scene appeared, the initial response was to orient to the center of the screen. Following this, fixation distributions did not vary with image feature distributions when freely viewing scenes. When searching the scenes, fixation distributions shifted slightly toward the distribution of features in the image, primarily during the first few fixations after the initial orienting response. The endurance of the central fixation bias irrespective of the distribution of image features, or the observer's task, implies one of three possible explanations: First, the center of the screen may be an optimal location for early information processing of the scene. Second, it may simply be that the center of the screen is a convenient location from which to start oculomotor exploration of the scene. Third, it may be that the central bias reflects a tendency to re-center the eye in its orbit.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Yarbus, A. L. (1967) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-5379-7 · Cited by 3,304
Cited by
Saliency Detection via Graph-Based Manifold Ranking
Yang, C., Zhang, L., Lu, H., Ruan, X., & Yang, M.-H. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2013.407 · Cited by 2,554
What Do Different Evaluation Metrics Tell Us About Saliency Models?
Bylinskii, Z., Judd, T., Oliva, A., Torralba, A., & Durand, F. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2018.2815601 · Cited by 802
Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience
Tatler, B. W., Hayhoe, M. M., Land, M. F., & Ballard, D. H. (2011) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/11.5.5 · Cited by 775
Self-citationJiang, M., Huang, S., Duan, J., & Zhao, Q. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298710 · Cited by 729
Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook
Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T. Z., & Milosavljevic, M. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.010 · Cited by 585
Metadata
- Authors
- Tatler, B. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2007-11-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 4
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2040253108
- Cited by
- 1,028
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.76
- 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: The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/7.14.4
- The paper
- Tatler, B. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.14.4
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.