August 2014
Volume 14, Issue 10
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2014
You dont know where your eyes have been and that could be problem.
Author Affiliations
  • Jeremy Wolfe
    Visual Attention Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Trafton Drew
    Visual Attention Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Melissa Vo
    Visual Attention Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital
Journal of Vision August 2014, Vol.14, 1191. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jeremy Wolfe, Trafton Drew, Melissa Vo; You dont know where your eyes have been and that could be problem.. Journal of Vision 2014;14(10):1191.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Hidden formatting deleted. Delete this text! text-autospace:none">When you cant find your keys and you swear that you have "looked everywhere", you probably havent. We tracked the eyes of 24 radiologists searching through chest CT scans for small white nodules that are signs of lung cancer. They searched by scrolling up and down through the volume of the chest for up to 3 minutes. Many radiologists finished early, presumably satisfied that they had adequately examined the entire lung. They found 57% of the nodules, but did they "look everywhere"? To estimate coverage, we assumed a circular Functional Visual Field (FVF) around the point of fixation in the current slice. Coverage depends on estimates of FVF radius. A 2.5 deg FVF results in 41% estimated coverage. This rises only to 68% with a generous 5 deg field. It is not clear that one could resolve lung nodules 2.5 deg away from fixation and eye tracking suggests that many nodules were never adequately fixated. Didnt our radiologists know that they had failed to look at large parts of the stimulus? Maybe not. In Exp2, naïve Os performed an easy change detection task. They looked at pairs of scenes for 3sec each, attempting to detect a change in Scene2. On 25% of trials, Scene2 was replaced by a request to make 12 mouse clicks on locations in the unchanged Scene1 "where you think you just fixated". After 135 trials, observers saw 10 new scenes and were asked to put 12 clicks where "someone else would have looked". Observers memory for the placement of their own fixations was no better than another observers guesses. While we have some understanding of where people should look or where fixations are likely, we seem to have a very poor record of where we actually just looked.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.