Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Motor “laziness” constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks

View ORCID ProfileCharlie S. Burlingham, View ORCID ProfileNaveen Sendhilnathan, View ORCID ProfileOleg Komogortsev, View ORCID ProfileT. Scott Murdison, View ORCID ProfileMichael J. Proulx
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.528190
Charlie S. Burlingham
1Reality Labs Research, Meta Platforms, Inc., Redmond, WA 98052
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Charlie S. Burlingham
  • For correspondence: charlie.burlingham@nyu.edu
Naveen Sendhilnathan
1Reality Labs Research, Meta Platforms, Inc., Redmond, WA 98052
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Naveen Sendhilnathan
Oleg Komogortsev
1Reality Labs Research, Meta Platforms, Inc., Redmond, WA 98052
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oleg Komogortsev
T. Scott Murdison
2Reality Labs, Meta Platforms, Inc., Redmond, WA 98052
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Scott Murdison
Michael J. Proulx
1Reality Labs Research, Meta Platforms, Inc., Redmond, WA 98052
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J. Proulx
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

People coordinate their eye, head, and body movements to gather information from a dynamic environment while maximizing reward and minimizing biomechanical and energetic costs. Such natural behavior is not possible in a laboratory setting where the head and body are usually restrained and the tasks and stimuli used often lack ecological validity. Therefore, it’s unclear to what extent principles of fixation selection derived from lab studies, such as inhibition-of-return (IOR), apply in a real-world setting. To address this gap, participants performed nine real-world tasks, including driving, grocery shopping, and building a lego set, while wearing a mobile eye tracker (169 recordings; 26.6 hours). Surprisingly, spatial and temporal IOR were absent in all tasks. Instead, participants most often returned to what they just viewed, and saccade latencies were shorter preceding return than forward saccades. We hypothesized that participants minimize the time their eyes spend in an eccentric position to conserve eye and head motor effort. Correspondingly, we observed center biases in the distributions of fixation location and duration, relative to the head’s orientation. A model that generates scanpaths by randomly sampling these distributions reproduced the spatial and temporal return phenomena seen in the data, including distinct 3-fixation sequences for forward versus return saccades. The amount of the orbit used in each task traded off with fixation duration, as if both incur costs in the same space. Conservation of effort (“laziness”) explains all these behaviors, demonstrating that motor costs shape how people extract and act on relevant visual information from the environment.

Significance Statement Humans display remarkably precise yet flexible control of eye and body movements, allowing for a wide range of activities. However, most studies of gaze behavior use the same setup: a head-restrained participant views small images on a computer. Such lab studies find that people avoid looking at the same thing twice, and hesitate in cases when they do. We had people perform nine everyday activities while wearing glasses with embedded eye tracking, and surprisingly found that they did the opposite, often returning to what they just viewed and expediting these “return” eye movements over others. A tendency to keep the eyes centered in the head, which we speculate helps to conserve motor effort, explained these behaviors for all tasks.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors are affiliated with Reality Lab Research, Meta Platforms Inc., though this study did not include any products or services related to the company. As this is not evaluating or promoting any products or services, we do not have any competing or financial interests to report.

Footnotes

  • cs.burlingham{at}gmail.com

  • naveensn{at}meta.com

  • ok1{at}meta.com

  • smurdison{at}meta.com

  • michaelproulx{at}meta.com

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 14, 2023.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Motor “laziness” constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Motor “laziness” constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks
Charlie S. Burlingham, Naveen Sendhilnathan, Oleg Komogortsev, T. Scott Murdison, Michael J. Proulx
bioRxiv 2023.02.13.528190; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.528190
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Motor “laziness” constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks
Charlie S. Burlingham, Naveen Sendhilnathan, Oleg Komogortsev, T. Scott Murdison, Michael J. Proulx
bioRxiv 2023.02.13.528190; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.528190

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4666)
  • Biochemistry (10324)
  • Bioengineering (7649)
  • Bioinformatics (26274)
  • Biophysics (13490)
  • Cancer Biology (10659)
  • Cell Biology (15386)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (8474)
  • Ecology (12795)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16812)
  • Genetics (11377)
  • Genomics (15443)
  • Immunology (10589)
  • Microbiology (25112)
  • Molecular Biology (10183)
  • Neuroscience (54296)
  • Paleontology (399)
  • Pathology (1663)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2888)
  • Physiology (4330)
  • Plant Biology (9221)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1585)
  • Synthetic Biology (2548)
  • Systems Biology (6766)
  • Zoology (1459)