Eye Movements as a Window into Decision-Making

Behind mouse eyes: The function and control of eye movements in mice

The mouse visual system has become the most popular model to study the cellular and circuit mechanisms of sensory processing. However, the importance of eye movements only started to be appreciated recently. Eye movements provide a basis for predictive sensing and deliver insights into various brain functions and dysfunctions. A plethora of knowledge on the central control of eye movements and their role in perception and behaviour arose from work on primates. However, an overview of various eye movements in mice and a comparison to primates is missing. Here, we review the eye movement types described to date in mice and compare them to those observed in primates. We discuss the central neuronal mechanisms for their generation and control. Furthermore, we review the mounting literature on eye movements in mice during head-fixed and freely moving behaviours. Finally, we highlight gaps in our understanding and suggest future directions for research.

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.

Perceptual decisions interfere more with eye movements than with reach movements

Perceptual judgements are formed through invisible cognitive processes. Reading out these judgements is essential for advancing our understanding of decision making and requires inferring covert cognitive states based on overt motor actions. Although intuition suggests that these actions must be related to the formation of decisions about where to move body parts, actions have been reported to be influenced by perceptual judgements even when the action is irrelevant to the perceptual judgement. However, despite performing multiple actions in our daily lives, how perceptual judgements influence multiple judgement-irrelevant actions is unknown. Here we show that perceptual judgements affect only saccadic eye movements when simultaneous judgement-irrelevant saccades and reaches are made, demonstrating that perceptual judgement-related signals continuously flow into the oculomotor system alone when multiple judgement-irrelevant actions are performed. This suggests that saccades are useful for making inferences about covert perceptual decisions, even when the actions are not tied to decision making.

The effect of impaired velocity signals on goal-directed eye and hand movements

Information about position and velocity is essential to predict where moving targets will be in the future, and to accurately move towards them. But how are the two signals combined over time to complete goal-directed movements? We show that when velocity information is impaired due to using second-order motion stimuli, saccades directed towards moving targets land at positions where targets were ~ 100 ms before saccade initiation, but hand movements are accurate. Importantly, the longer latencies of hand movements allow for additional time to process the sensory information available. When increasing the period of time one sees the moving target before making the saccade, saccades become accurate. In line with that, hand movements with short latencies show higher curvature, indicating corrections based on an update of incoming sensory information. These results suggest that movements are controlled by an independent and evolving combination of sensory information about the target's position and velocity.

Rapid Audiovisual Integration Guides Predictive Actions

Natural movements, such as catching a ball or capturing prey, typically involve multiple senses. Yet, laboratory studies on human movements commonly focus solely on vision and ignore sound. Here, we ask how visual and auditory signals are integrated to guide interceptive movements. Human observers tracked the brief launch of a simulated baseball, randomly paired with batting sounds of varying intensities, and made a quick pointing movement at the ball. Movement end points revealed systematic overestimation of target speed when the ball launch was paired with a loud versus a quiet sound, although sound was never informative. This effect was modulated by the availability of visual information; sounds biased interception when the visual presentation duration of the ball was short. Amplitude of the first catch-up saccade, occurring ∼125 ms after target launch, revealed early integration of audiovisual information for trajectory estimation. This sound-induced bias was reversed during later predictive saccades when more visual information was available. Our findings suggest that auditory and visual signals are integrated to guide interception and that this integration process must occur early at a neural site that receives auditory and visual signals within an ultrashort time span.

Machine learning based on eye-tracking data to identify Autism Spectrum Disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Machine learning has been widely used to identify Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) based on eye-tracking, but its accuracy is uncertain. We aimed to summarize the available evidence on the performances of machine learning algorithms in classifying ASD and typically developing (TD) individuals based on eye-tracking data.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Wan Fang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, from database inception to December 24, 2021. Studies using machine learning methods to classify ASD and TD individuals based on eye-tracking technologies were included. We extracted the data on study population, model performances, algorithms of machine learning, and paradigms of eye-tracking. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022296037.

RESULTS

261 articles were identified, of which 24 studies with sample sizes ranging from 28 to 141 were included (n = 1396 individuals). Machine learning based on eye-tracking yielded the pooled classified accuracy of 81 % (I² = 73 %), specificity of 79 % (I² = 61 %), and sensitivity of 84 % (I² = 61 %) in classifying ASD and TD individuals. In subgroup analysis, the accuracy was 88 % (95 % CI: 85-91 %), 79 % (95 % CI: 72-84 %), 71 % (95 % CI: 59-91 %) for preschool-aged, school-aged, and adolescent-adult group. Eye-tracking stimuli and machine learning algorithms varied widely across studies, with social, static, and active stimuli and Support Vector Machine and Random Forest most commonly reported. Regarding the model performance evaluation, 15 studies reported their final results on validation datasets, four based on testing datasets, and five did not report whether they used validation datasets. Most studies failed to report the information on eye-tracking hardware and the implementation process.

CONCLUSION

Using eye-tracking data, machine learning has shown potential in identifying ASD individuals with high accuracy, especially in preschool-aged children. However, the heterogeneity between studies, the absence of test set-based performance evaluations, the small sample size, and the non-standardized implementation of eye-tracking might deteriorate the reliability of results. Further well-designed and well-executed studies with comprehensive and transparent reporting are needed to determine the optimal eye-tracking paradigms and machine learning algorithms.