↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Peripheral Visual Field Loss on Eye Movements During Visual Search

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Peripheral Visual Field Loss on Eye Movements During Visual Search
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Wiecek, Louis R. Pasquale, Jozsef Fiser, Steven Dakin, Peter J. Bex

Abstract

Natural vision involves sequential eye movements that bring the fovea to locations selected by peripheral vision. How peripheral visual field loss (PVFL) affects this process is not well understood. We examine how the location and extent of PVFL affects eye movement behavior in a naturalistic visual search task. Ten patients with PVFL and 13 normally sighted subjects with full visual fields (FVF) completed 30 visual searches monocularly. Subjects located a 4° × 4° target, pseudo-randomly selected within a 26° × 11° natural image. Eye positions were recorded at 50 Hz. Search duration, fixation duration, saccade size, and number of saccades per trial were not significantly different between PVFL and FVF groups (p > 0.1). A χ(2) test showed that the distributions of saccade directions for PVFL and FVL subjects were significantly different in 8 out of 10 cases (p < 0.01). Humphrey Visual Field pattern deviations for each subject were compared with the spatial distribution of eye movement directions. There were no significant correlations between saccade directional bias and visual field sensitivity across the 10 patients. Visual search performance was not significantly affected by PVFL. An analysis of eye movement directions revealed patients with PVFL show a biased directional distribution that was not directly related to the locus of vision loss, challenging feed-forward models of eye movement control. Consequently, many patients do not optimally compensate for visual field loss during visual search.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 15%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Engineering 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,171,868
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,785
of 29,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,205
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.