Dwelling, rescanning, and skipping of distractors explain search efficiency in difficult search better than guidance by the target

Objective Parameters in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Eye and Head Movements

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate eye and head movements, which are objective parameters in ADHD. Method: While the children were watching the course video task, which included the relevant (teacher and smart board) and irrelevant (any regions outside the relevant area) areas of interest, their eye movements were evaluated through eye tracking, and video recordings were made simultaneous. Head position estimation was made using through video recordings. The proportion of total fixation duration on areas of interest (PFDAOI) and saccade count, amplitude, velocity for eye movements, number of total head movements and angular change of head movement in x-y-z axes for head movements were compared.

RESULTS

Children with ADHD had lower PFDAOI on the relevant area, and had more saccade and head movements The angular change of head movement in the x-axis was higher in the ADHD group.

CONCLUSION

In the assessment of ADHD, the eye and head movements may be particulary useful.

Refixation behavior in naturalistic viewing: Methods, mechanisms, and neural correlates

When freely viewing a scene, the eyes often return to previously visited locations. By tracking eye movements and coregistering eye movements and EEG, such refixations are shown to have multiple roles: repairing insufficient encoding from precursor fixations, supporting ongoing viewing by resampling relevant locations prioritized by precursor fixations, and aiding the construction of memory representations. All these functions of refixation behavior are understood to be underpinned by three oculomotor and cognitive systems and their associated brain structures. First, immediate saccade planning prior to refixations involves attentional selection of candidate locations to revisit. This process is likely supported by the dorsal attentional network. Second, visual working memory, involved in maintaining task-related information, is likely supported by the visual cortex. Third, higher-order relevance of scene locations, which depends on general knowledge and understanding of scene meaning, is likely supported by the hippocampal memory system. Working together, these structures bring about viewing behavior that balances exploring previously unvisited areas of a scene with exploiting visited areas through refixations.

Which processes dominate visual search: Bottom-up feature contrast, top-down tuning or trial history?

Previous research has identified three mechanisms that guide visual attention: bottom-up feature contrasts, top-down tuning, and the trial history (e.g., priming effects). However, only few studies have simultaneously examined all three mechanisms. Hence, it is currently unclear how they interact or which mechanisms dominate over others. With respect to local feature contrasts, it has been claimed that a pop-out target can only be selected immediately in dense displays when the target has a high local feature contrast, but not when the displays are sparse, which leads to an inverse set-size effect. The present study critically evaluated this view by systematically varying local feature contrasts (i.e., set size), top-down knowledge, and the trial history in pop-out search. We used eye tracking to distinguish between early selection and later identification-related processes. The results revealed that early visual selection was mainly dominated by top-down knowledge and the trial history: When attention was biased to the target feature, either by valid pre-cueing (top-down) or automatic priming, the target could be localised immediately, regardless of display density. Bottom-up feature contrasts only modulated selection when the target was unknown and attention was biased to the non-targets. We also replicated the often-reported finding of reliable feature contrast effects in the mean RTs, but showed that these were due to later, target identification processes (e.g., in the target dwell times). Thus, contrary to the prevalent view, bottom-up feature contrasts in dense displays do not seem to directly guide attention, but only facilitate nontarget rejection, probably by facilitating nontarget grouping.

Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search

In visual search attention can be directed towards items matching top-down goals, but this must compete with factors such as salience that can capture attention. However, under some circumstances it appears that attention can avoid known distractor features. Chang and Egeth (Psychological Science, 30 (12), 1724–1732, 2019) found that such inhibitory effects reflect a combination of distractor-feature suppression and target-feature enhancement. In the present study (N = 48), we extend these findings by revealing that suppression and enhancement effects guide overt attention. On search trials (75% of trials) participants searched for a diamond shape among several other shapes. On half of the search trials all objects were the same colour (e.g., green) and on the other half of the search trials one of the non-target shapes appeared in a different colour (e.g., red). On interleaved probe trials (25% of trials), subjects were presented with four ovals. One of the ovals was in either the colour of the target or the colour of the distractor from the search trials. The other three ovals were on neutral colours. Critically, we found that attention was overtly captured by target colours and avoided distractor colours when they were viewed in a background of neutral colours. In addition, we provided a time course of attentional control. Within visual search tasks we observed inhibition aiding early attentional effects, indexed by the time it took gaze to first reach the target, as well as later decision-making processes indexed by the time for a decision to be made once the target as found.

The Functional Visual Field(s) in simple visual search

During a visual search for a target among distractors, observers do not fixate every location in the search array. Rather processing is thought to occur within a Functional Visual Field (FVF) surrounding each fixation. We argue that there are three questions that can be asked at each fixation and that these imply three different senses of the FVF. 1) Can I identify what is at location XY? This defines a resolution FVF. 2) To what shall I attend during this fixation? This defines an Attentional FVF. 3) Where should I fixate next? This defines an Exploratory FVF. We examine FVFs 2&3 using eye movements in visual search. In three Experiments, we collected eye movements during visual search for the target letter T among distractor letter Ls (Exps 1 and 3) or for a color X orientation conjunction (Exp 2). Saccades that do not go to the target can be used to define the Exploratory FVF. The saccade that goes to the target can be used to define the Attentional FVF since the target was probably covertly detected during the prior fixation. The Exploratory FVF is larger than the Attentional FVF for all three experiments. Interestingly, the probability that the next saccade would go to the target was always well below 1.0, even when the current fixation was close to the target and well within any reasonable estimate of the FVF. Measuring search-based Exploratory and Attentional FVFs sheds light on how we can miss clearly visible targets.

Alexithymia Is Associated With Deficits in Visual Search for Emotional Faces in Clinical Depression

Background: The concept of alexithymia is characterized by difficulties identifying and describing one's emotions. Alexithymic individuals are impaired in the recognition of others' emotional facial expressions. Alexithymia is quite common in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. The face-in-the-crowd task is a visual search paradigm that assesses processing of multiple facial emotions. In the present eye-tracking study, the relationship between alexithymia and visual processing of facial emotions was examined in clinical depression. Materials and Methods: Gaze behavior and manual response times of 20 alexithymic and 19 non-alexithymic depressed patients were compared in a face-in-the-crowd task. Alexithymia was empirically measured via the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia-Scale. Angry, happy, and neutral facial expressions of different individuals were shown as target and distractor stimuli. Our analyses of gaze behavior focused on latency to the target face, number of distractor faces fixated before fixating the target, number of target fixations, and number of distractor faces fixated after fixating the target. Results: Alexithymic patients exhibited in general slower decision latencies compared to non-alexithymic patients in the face-in-the-crowd task. Patient groups did not differ in latency to target, number of target fixations, and number of distractors fixated prior to target fixation. However, after having looked at the target, alexithymic patients fixated more distractors than non-alexithymic patients, regardless of expression condition. Discussion: According to our results, alexithymia goes along with impairments in visual processing of multiple facial emotions in clinical depression. Alexithymia appears to be associated with delayed manual reaction times and prolonged scanning after the first target fixation in depression, but it might have no impact on the early search phase. The observed deficits could indicate difficulties in target identification and/or decision-making when processing multiple emotional facial expressions. Impairments of alexithymic depressed patients in processing emotions in crowds of faces seem not limited to a specific affective valence. In group situations, alexithymic depressed patients might be slowed in processing interindividual differences in emotional expressions compared with non-alexithymic depressed patients. This could represent a disadvantage in understanding non-verbal communication in groups.

Efficient visual search for facial emotions in patients with major depression

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder has been associated with specific attentional biases in processing emotional facial expressions: heightened attention for negative and decreased attention for positive faces. However, using visual search paradigms, previous reaction-time-based research failed, in general, to find evidence for increased spatial attention toward negative facial expressions and reduced spatial attention toward positive facial expressions in depressed individuals. Eye-tracking analyses allow for a more detailed examination of visual search processes over time during the perception of multiple stimuli and can provide more specific insights into the attentional processing of multiple emotional stimuli.

METHODS

Gaze behavior of 38 clinically depressed individuals and 38 gender matched healthy controls was compared in a face-in-the-crowd task. Pictures of happy, angry, and neutral facial expressions were utilized as target and distractor stimuli. Four distinct measures of eye gaze served as dependent variables: (a) latency to the target face, (b) number of distractor faces fixated prior to fixating the target, (c) mean fixation time per distractor face before fixating the target and (d) mean fixation time on the target.

RESULTS

Depressed and healthy individuals did not differ in their manual response times. Our eye-tracking data revealed no differences between study groups in attention guidance to emotional target faces as well as in the duration of attention allocation to emotional distractor and target faces. However, depressed individuals fixated fewer distractor faces before fixating the target than controls, regardless of valence of expressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressed individuals seem to process angry and happy expressions in crowds of faces mainly in the same way as healthy individuals. Our data indicate no biased attention guidance to emotional targets and no biased processing of angry and happy distractors and targets in depression during visual search. Under conditions of clear task demand depressed individuals seem to be able to allocate and guide their attention in crowds of angry and happy faces as efficiently as healthy individuals.

Computerized Eye-Tracking Training Improves the Saccadic Eye Movements of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Abnormal saccadic eye movements, such as longer anti-saccade latency and lower pro-saccade accuracy, are common in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of computerized eye-tracking training on improving saccadic eye movements in children with ADHD. Eighteen children with ADHD (mean age = 8.8 years, 10 males) were recruited and assigned to either the experimental (n = 9) or control group (n = 9). The experimental group underwent an accumulated 240 min of eye-tracking training within two weeks, whereas the control group engaged in web game playing for the same amount of time. Saccadic performances were assessed using the anti- and pro-saccade tasks before and after training. Compared to the baseline, only the children who underwent the eye-tracking training showed significant improvements in saccade latency and accuracy in the anti- and pro-saccade tasks, respectively. In contrast, the control group exhibited no significant changes. These preliminary findings support the use of eye-tracking training as a safe non-pharmacological intervention for improving the saccadic eye movements of children with ADHD.

Dwelling on simple stimuli in visual search

Research and theories on visual search often focus on visual guidance to explain differences in search. Guidance is the tuning of attention to target features and facilitates search because distractors that do not show target features can be more effectively ignored (skipping). As a general rule, the better the guidance is, the more efficient search is. Correspondingly, behavioral experiments often interpreted differences in efficiency as reflecting varying degrees of attentional guidance. But other factors such as the time spent on processing a distractor (dwelling) or multiple visits to the same stimulus in a search display (revisiting) are also involved in determining search efficiency. While there is some research showing that dwelling and revisiting modulate search times in addition to skipping, the corresponding studies used complex naturalistic and category-defined stimuli. The present study tests whether results from prior research can be generalized to more simple stimuli, where target-distractor similarity, a strong factor influencing search performance, can be manipulated in a detailed fashion. Thus, in the present study, simple stimuli with varying degrees of target-distractor similarity were used to deliver conclusive evidence for the contribution of dwelling and revisiting to search performance. The results have theoretical and methodological implications: They imply that visual search models should not treat dwelling and revisiting as constants across varying levels of search efficiency and that behavioral search experiments are equivocal with respect to the responsible processing mechanisms underlying more versus less efficient search. We also suggest that eye-tracking methods may be used to disentangle different search components such as skipping, dwelling, and revisiting.

No Advantage for Separating Overt and Covert Attention in Visual Search

We move our eyes roughly three times every second while searching complex scenes, but covert attention helps to guide where we allocate those overt fixations. Covert attention may be allocated reflexively or voluntarily, and speeds the rate of information processing at the attended location. Reducing access to covert attention hinders performance, but it is not known to what degree the locus of covert attention is tied to the current gaze position. We compared visual search performance in a traditional gaze-contingent display, with a second task where a similarly sized contingent window is controlled with a mouse, allowing a covert aperture to be controlled independently by overt gaze. Larger apertures improved performance for both the mouse- and gaze-contingent trials, suggesting that covert attention was beneficial regardless of control type. We also found evidence that participants used the mouse-controlled aperture somewhat independently of gaze position, suggesting that participants attempted to untether their covert and overt attention when possible. This untethering manipulation, however, resulted in an overall cost to search performance, a result at odds with previous results in a change blindness paradigm. Untethering covert and overt attention may therefore have costs or benefits depending on the task demands in each case.

Novelty competes with saliency for attention

A highly debated question in attention research is to what extent attention is biased by bottom-up factors such as saliency versus top-down factors as governed by the task. Visual search experiments in which participants are briefly familiarized with the task and then see a novel stimulus unannounced and for the first time support yet another factor, showing that novel and surprising features attract attention. In the present study, we tested whether gaze behavior as an indicator for attentional prioritization can be predicted accurately within displays containing both salient and novel stimuli by means of a priority map that assumes novelty as an additional source of activation. To that aim, we conducted a visual search experiment where a color singleton was presented for the first time in the surprise trial and manipulated the color-novelty of the remaining non-singletons between participants. In one group, the singleton was the only novel stimulus ("one-new"), whereas in another group, the non-singleton stimuli were likewise novel ("all-new"). The surprise trial was always target absent and designed such that top-down prioritization of any color was unlikely. The results show that the singleton in the all-new group captured the gaze less strongly, with more early fixations being directed to the novel non-singletons. Overall, the fixation pattern can accurately be explained by noisy priority maps where saliency and novelty compete for gaze control.

Dwelling on distractors varying in target-distractor similarity

Present day models of visual search focus on explaining search efficiency by visual guidance: The target guides attention to the target's position better in more efficient than in less efficient search. The time spent processing the distractor, however, is set to a constant in these models. In contrast to this assumption, recent studies found that dwelling on distractors is longer in more inefficient search. Previous experiments in support of this contention all presented the same distractors across all conditions, while varying the targets. While this procedure has its virtues, it confounds the manipulation of search efficiency with target type. Here we use the same targets over the entire experiment, while varying search efficiency by presenting different types of distractors. Eye fixation behavior was used to infer the amount of distractor dwelling, skipping, and revisiting. The results replicate previous results, with similarity affecting dwelling, and dwelling in turn affecting search performance. A regression analysis confirmed that variations in dwelling account for a large amount of variance in search speed, and that the similarity effect in dwelling accounts for the similarity effect in overall search performance.