title: Modelling the role of task in the control of gaze.
abstract: Gaze changes and the resultant fixations that orchestrate the sequential acquisition of information from the visual environment are the central feature of primate vision. How are we to understand their function? For the most part, theories of fixation targets have been image based: The hypothesis being that the eye is drawn to places in the scene that contain discontinuities in image features such as motion, colour, and texture. But are these features the cause of the fixations, or merely the result of fixations that have been planned to serve some visual function? This paper examines the issue and reviews evidence from various image-based and task-based sources. Our conclusion is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of fixation control being essentially task based.
authors.affiliation: Center for Perceptual Systems, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Dana H
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Ballard
authors.forename: Mary M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Hayhoe
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2003 May;46(3):260-301
references.pmid: 12694695
references.citation: Vision Res. 1998 Jan;38(1):125-37
references.pmid: 9474383
references.citation: Vision Res. 2005 Jan;45(2):205-31
references.pmid: 15581921
references.citation: Vision Res. 2001;41(25-26):3535-45
references.pmid: 11718793
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1352-65
references.pmid: 18085948
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Feb 15;8(2):2.1-19
references.pmid: 18318628
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2006;155:23-36
references.pmid: 17027377
references.citation: J Vis. 2007 Nov 21;7(14):4.1-17
references.pmid: 18217799
references.citation: Vision Res. 2002 May;42(11):1447-63
references.pmid: 12044751
references.citation: Brain. 1983 Jun;106 (Pt 2):313-40
references.pmid: 6850272
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Winter;7(1):66-80
references.pmid: 23961754
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:167-92
references.pmid: 17705683
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Feb 20;8(2):6.1-17
references.pmid: 18318632
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Mar;2(3):194-203
references.pmid: 11256080
references.citation: J Vis. 2006 Dec 15;6(12):1431-50
references.pmid: 17209746
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5467-72
references.pmid: 12695564
references.citation: J Vis. 2005 Mar 07;5(3):177-93
references.pmid: 15929644
references.citation: J Vis. 2003;3(1):49-63
references.pmid: 12678625
references.citation: J Vis. 2006 Mar 13;6(4):379-86
references.pmid: 16889476
references.citation: J Physiol. 1962 Jan;160:106-54
references.pmid: 14449617
references.citation: Hum Neurobiol. 1985;4(4):219-27
references.pmid: 3836989
references.citation: J Vis. 2007 Dec 19;7(14):16.1-20
references.pmid: 18217811
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Jun;1(2):202-38
references.pmid: 24203471
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 31;101(35):13086-90
references.pmid: 15326284
references.citation: J Vis. 2003;3(1):86-94
references.pmid: 12678628
references.citation: Cognition. 1984 Dec;18(1-3):97-159
references.pmid: 6543165
references.citation: Neuron. 1999 Mar;22(3):593-604
references.pmid: 10197538
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1997 Dec;20(4):723-42; discussion 743-67
references.pmid: 10097009
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Dec;3(12):1340-5
references.pmid: 11100157
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Dec;31(6):1416-38
references.pmid: 16366799
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Sep 24;395(6700):376-81
references.pmid: 9759726
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1980 Jan;12(1):97-136
references.pmid: 7351125