Openness to experience predicts eye movement behavior during scene viewing
-
Published:2024-08-12
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1943-3921
-
Container-title:Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atten Percept Psychophys
Author:
Wyche Nicholas J.,Edwards Mark,Goodhew Stephanie C.
Abstract
AbstractIndividuals’ abilities to perform goal-directed spatial deployments of attention are distinguishable from their broader preferences for how they use spatial attention when circumstances do not compel a specific deployment strategy. Although these preferences are likely to play a major role in how we interact with the visual world during daily life, they remain relatively understudied. This exploratory study investigated two key questions about these preferences: firstly, are individuals consistent in their preferences for how they deploy their spatial attention when making shifts of attention versus adopting an attentional breadth? Secondly, which other factors are associated with these preferences? Across two experiments, we measured how participants preferred to deploy both attentional breadth (using an adapted Navon task) and eye movements (using a free-viewing task). We also measured participants’ working memory capacities (Experiment 1), and their personalities and world beliefs (Experiment 2). In both experiments, there were consistent individual differences in preference for attentional breadth and eye movement characteristics, but these two kinds of preference were unrelated to each other. Working memory capacity was not linked to these preferences. Conversely, the personality trait of Openness to Experience robustly predicted two aspects of eye movement behavior preference, such that higher levels of Openness predicted smaller saccades and shorter scan paths. This suggests that personality dimensions may predict preferences for more absorbed engagement with visual information. However, it appears that individuals’ preferences for shifts of attention during scene viewing do not necessarily relate to the breadth of attention they choose to adopt.
Funder
Australian National University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference76 articles.
1. Ahlström, C., Kircher, K., Nyström, M., & Wolfe, B. (2021). Eye tracking in driver attention research—how gaze data interpretations influence what we learn. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2021.778043 2. Ahmed, L., & de Fockert, J. W. (2012a). Focusing on attention: The effects of working memory capacity and load on selective attention. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043101 3. Ahmed, L., & de Fockert, J. W. (2012b). Working memory load can both improve and impair selective attention: Evidence from the Navon paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0357-1 4. Andraszewicz, S., Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., Grasman, R., Verhagen, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). An introduction to Bayesian hypothesis testing for management research. Journal of Management, 41(2), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560412 5. Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, A. M., Dale, A. M., Hämäläinen, M. S., Marinkovic, K., Schacter, D. L., Rosen, B. R., & Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(2), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507062103
|
|