Introduction Discussion Selected references Rayner (1998). Psych Bull, 124(3), 372–422. Vitu (2011). In : The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 731–749). Rayner (1979). Perception, 8(1), 21–30. McConkie et al. (1989). Percept Psychophys, 46(3), 245– 253. Vitu et al. (2001). Vis Res, 41(25-26), 3513–3531. Henderson (1993). Can J Exp Psychol, 47(1), 79-98. van der Linden et al. (2015). J Vis, 15(5), 1–18. van der Linden et al. (2015). Att Percept Psychophys, 1– 16. Nazir et al., (1991). Bull Psychon Soc, 29(2), 171–174. Nuthmann et al. (2007). Vis Res, 47(7), 990–1002. Vitu et al. (1995). Percept Psychophys, 57(3), 352–364. Adeli et al., (2015), VSS. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Away from center Away from center Away from center Away from center 3° 5° PVL eﬀects Away from center Away from center versus PVL OVP I-OVP PVL OVP I-OVP Real objects Meaningless non-objects Methods + 3° + + + + Stimulus type (between blocks) Eccentricity (within blocks) 3° 5° 5° Manipulations Real objects Stimuli Non-objects Hemera objects Width 0.85-2.10° Normalized on px Texture synthesis Width constant 0.85° Normalized on px + Task Saccade towards the object as fast as possible Landing positions Normalized x coordinates -0.5 0 0.5 on-object oﬀ-object oﬀ-object -1 1 Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive Lotje van der Linden1, Gregory J. Zelinsky2 and Françoise Vitu1 Aix Marseille université cnrs l.vanderlinden@cogsci.nl www.cogsci.nl/lvanderlinden 1. Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive UMR 7290, Marseille, France 2. Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, New York, United States Viewing-position eﬀects in meaningless object viewing PVL OVP vêtements vêtements vêtements I-OVP Frequency Reﬁxation probability Initial-ﬁxation duration Eye movements during object viewing → same regularities [6-8] The center of a stimulus is optimal for visual extraction [9] 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 40° 60° 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fovea Relative visual acuity vêtements Degrees from fovea Eye movements during reading → regularities [1, 2] Eyes land near the center of words → preferred viewing location (PVL) eﬀect [3] Central landing positions result in less reﬁxations → optimal viewing position (OVP) eﬀect [4] and longer initial ﬁxation durations → inverted OVP (I-OVP) eﬀect[5] We know that... Several nocturnal animals were observed. Normal condition Zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzz. Z-reading condition versus Diﬀerences → cognitive processing Similarities → visuomotor processing Real objects Meaningless non-objects versus Are PVL, OVP and I-OVP eﬀects Directly caused by these visual-processing advantages? e.g. PVL = strategy to aim at center to optimize visual-information uptake All eﬀects generalize to mindless reading e.g. 10, 11] Is the same true for mindless object viewing? Or are they visuomotor processes? e.g. PVL = automatic center-of-gravity eﬀect Research question: Regularities during reading reﬂect visuomotor constraints PVL, OVP and I-OVP generalized → The eyes prefer to land at, and stay at, the center of stimuli We found that... regardless of stimulus content This suggests that... PVL, OVP and I-OVP eﬀects reﬂect low-level visuomotor processing and not higher-level ongoing processing such as object recognition This is important for... models on eye guidance in scenes increased predictive power whenimplementing visuomotor constraints [12] Results