Eye-tracking study of inanimate objects

This study involved presentation of animate objects under labelling and non-labelling conditions and examination of participants’ looking pattern across these conditions. Results revealed a surprisingly consistent way in which adults look at the pictures of animate objects. The head/eyes of the animals were a typical region attracting a number of fixations, but also some other parts of animals (e.g. the tail in cats, or the udder in cows and the body in snakes). Furthermore, not only did participants tend to look at similar regions of the pictures of animate objects, but also the looking order to these regions was consistent across participants. However, contrary to the original predictions, these patterns of fixations were similar across the naming and non-naming conditions (‘Look at the !’, ‘Look at the picture!’ and ‘What’s this?’, respectively), which led to the conclusion that participants’ consistency in processing animate objects was not reflecting underlying mental representation evoked by labels, but was rather driven by the structural similarity of animate objects, in particular the presence of a head.

[1]  J. Henderson,et al.  The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing , 1999 .

[2]  G. Altmann,et al.  The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing , 2007 .

[3]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Category-Specific Semantic Deficits in Focal and Widespread Brain Damage: A Computational Account , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  M. Just,et al.  Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. , 1993 .

[5]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[6]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Eye Movements and Problem Solving , 2003, Psychological science.

[7]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article WHAT THE EYES SAY ABOUT SPEAKING , 2022 .

[8]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  C. J. Downing.  Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: effects on perceptual quality. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[11]  Gerry T. M. Altmann,et al.  Thematic role assignment in context , 1999 .

[12]  K. Laws,et al.  A ‘normal’ category-specific advantage for naming living things , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  E. Forde,et al.  The role of local and global processing in the recognition of living and nonliving things , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition , 2001 .

[16]  W. Levelt,et al.  Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production , 1998, Cognition.

[17]  C. Clifton,et al.  The independence of syntactic processing , 1986 .

[18]  T. Shallice,et al.  Category specific semantic impairments , 1984 .

[19]  Category-Specific Effects in Object Identification: What is “Normal”? , 2005, Cortex.

[20]  D. Legge,et al.  Perception and Information. , 1976 .

[21]  Alex Martin,et al.  Functional Neuroimaging of Semantic Memory , 2001 .

[22]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  Alex Martin,et al.  Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[24]  G. Altmann,et al.  Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm , 2005, Cognition.

[25]  G. Altmann.  Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: the ‘blank screen paradigm’ , 2004, Cognition.

[26]  J. H. Ward.  Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[27]  Roger M. Cooper,et al.  The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. , 1974 .

[28]  M. Just,et al.  The psychology of reading and language comprehension , 1986 .

[29]  L. K. Tyler,et al.  Conceptual Structure and the Structure of Concepts: A Distributed Account of Category-Specific Deficits , 2000, Brain and Language.

[30]  N. J. Cohen,et al.  Eye-movement-based memory effect: a reprocessing effect in face perception. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  E. Warrington,et al.  Categories of knowledge. Further fractionations and an attempted integration. , 1987, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  Marzia Del Zotto,et al.  The emergence of semantic categorization in early visual processing: ERP indices of animal vs. artifact recognition , 2007, BMC Neuroscience.

[33]  B. Laeng,et al.  The visual basis of category effects in object identification: Evidence from the visual hemifield paradigm , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[34]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[35]  N. Mackworth,et al.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The Influence of Animacy on Relative Clause Processing , 2002 .

[37]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  Structural similarity causes different category-effects depending on task characteristics , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .