October 2020
Volume 20, Issue 11
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2020
Gaze behavior reveals differences between location and identity tracking
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jiří Lukavský
    Czech Academy of Sciences
  • Filip Děchtěrenko
    Czech Academy of Sciences
  • Hauke Meyerhoff
    Leibniz-Institut fur Wissensmedien
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  The research has been supported by Czech Science Foundation (GA19-07690S)
Journal of Vision October 2020, Vol.20, 367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.367
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jiří Lukavský, Filip Děchtěrenko, Hauke Meyerhoff; Gaze behavior reveals differences between location and identity tracking. Journal of Vision 2020;20(11):367. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.367.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Many everyday-life situations require to track multiple visual object simultaneously. This encompasses situations in which it is sufficient to monitor the locations of objects (e.g., avoiding collisions in traffic) as well as situations in which the identity of the tracked objects is highly relevant (e.g. monitoring your own children on a playground). Here, we use an eye-tracking approach to study whether the process of location tracking (multiple object tracking; MOT) differs from the process of tracking of identities (multiple identity tracking; MIT). We take advantage of the observation that observers fail to distinguish repeated MOT trials, but their eye movements are similar between repeated presentations. In two experiments, we compared the gaze similarity in pairs of (1) repeated MOT trials, (2) repeated MIT trials and (3) repeated MOT-MIT trials (order counterbalanced). We evaluated the similarity using Pearson correlations for spatiotemporal scanpatterns smoothed with a Gaussian filter. In Experiment 1 (N=20), the tasks were presented in separate blocks, whereas they were intermixed in Experiment 2 (N=20). In both experiments, we consistently observed that the gaze patterns were most similar in repeated MOT trials (Exp.1: r = .443; Exp.2: r = .395). The similarity was lower when we compared repeated MIT trials (r = .333; r = .276) or repeated MOT-MIT trials (r = .305 or r = .251). In Exp.1, the similarity was higher if the participant started with the MOT trials than when they started with the MIT trials. Nevertheless, the intermixed trials in Exp.2 revealed analogous results. The results confirm the gaze patterns in repeated MOT trials are similar. Identical trials presented first as MOT and later as MIT (or vice versa) yield more different gaze patterns suggesting that MOT and MIT rely on distinct processes with the MOT process being more consistent across trials than the MIT process.

×
×

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.

×