Eye Movement Indicator Difference Based on Binocular Color Fusion and Rivalry.

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Journal of Eye Movement Research Pub Date : 2025-04-05 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.3390/jemr18020010
Xinni Zhang, Mengshi Dai, Feiyan Cheng, Lijun Yun, Zaiqing Chen
{"title":"Eye Movement Indicator Difference Based on Binocular Color Fusion and Rivalry.","authors":"Xinni Zhang, Mengshi Dai, Feiyan Cheng, Lijun Yun, Zaiqing Chen","doi":"10.3390/jemr18020010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Color fusion and rivalry are two key information integration mechanisms in binocular vision, representing the visual system's processing patterns for consistent and conflicting inputs, respectively. This study hypothesizes that there are quantifiable differences in eye movement indicators under states of binocular color fusion and rivalry, which can be verified through multi-paradigm eye movement experiments. The experiment recruited eighteen subjects with normal vision (nine males and nine females), employing the Gaze Stability paradigm, Straight Curve Eye Hopping paradigm, and Smoothed Eye Movement Tracking paradigm for eye movement tracking. Each paradigm included a binocular color rivalry experimental group (R-G) and two binocular color fusion control groups (R-R, G-G). Data analysis indicates significant differences in indicators such as Average Saccade Amplitude, Median Saccade Amplitude, and SD of Saccade Amplitude between binocular color fusion and rivalry states. For instance, through Z-Score normalization and cross-paradigm merged analysis, specific ranges of these indicators were identified to distinguish between the two states. When the Average Saccade Amplitude falls within the range of -0.905--0.693, it indicates a state of binocular color rivalry; when the range is 0.608-1.294, it reflects a state of binocular color fusion. Subsequently, ROC curve analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the experimental paradigms in analyzing the mechanisms of binocular color fusion and rivalry, with AUC values of 0.990, 0.741, and 0.967, respectively. These results reveal the potential of eye movement behaviors as biomarkers for the dynamic processing of visual conflicts. This finding provides empirical support for understanding the neural computational models of binocular vision and lays a methodological foundation for developing visual impairment assessment tools based on eye movement features.</p>","PeriodicalId":15813,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","volume":"18 2","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12027996/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Eye Movement Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jemr18020010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Color fusion and rivalry are two key information integration mechanisms in binocular vision, representing the visual system's processing patterns for consistent and conflicting inputs, respectively. This study hypothesizes that there are quantifiable differences in eye movement indicators under states of binocular color fusion and rivalry, which can be verified through multi-paradigm eye movement experiments. The experiment recruited eighteen subjects with normal vision (nine males and nine females), employing the Gaze Stability paradigm, Straight Curve Eye Hopping paradigm, and Smoothed Eye Movement Tracking paradigm for eye movement tracking. Each paradigm included a binocular color rivalry experimental group (R-G) and two binocular color fusion control groups (R-R, G-G). Data analysis indicates significant differences in indicators such as Average Saccade Amplitude, Median Saccade Amplitude, and SD of Saccade Amplitude between binocular color fusion and rivalry states. For instance, through Z-Score normalization and cross-paradigm merged analysis, specific ranges of these indicators were identified to distinguish between the two states. When the Average Saccade Amplitude falls within the range of -0.905--0.693, it indicates a state of binocular color rivalry; when the range is 0.608-1.294, it reflects a state of binocular color fusion. Subsequently, ROC curve analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the experimental paradigms in analyzing the mechanisms of binocular color fusion and rivalry, with AUC values of 0.990, 0.741, and 0.967, respectively. These results reveal the potential of eye movement behaviors as biomarkers for the dynamic processing of visual conflicts. This finding provides empirical support for understanding the neural computational models of binocular vision and lays a methodological foundation for developing visual impairment assessment tools based on eye movement features.

基于双目颜色融合和竞争的眼动指标差异。
颜色融合和竞争是双目视觉中两种关键的信息整合机制,分别代表了视觉系统对一致和冲突输入的处理模式。本研究假设双眼颜色融合和竞争状态下的眼动指标存在可量化的差异,并可通过多范式眼动实验进行验证。实验招募18名视力正常的被试(男9名,女9名),采用凝视稳定范式、直线曲线跳眼范式和平滑眼动追踪范式进行眼动追踪。每个范式包括一个双眼颜色竞争实验组(R-G)和两个双眼颜色融合对照组(R-R, G-G)。数据分析表明,双眼颜色融合与竞争状态在平均眼跳振幅、中位数眼跳振幅、眼跳振幅标准差等指标上存在显著差异。例如,通过Z-Score归一化和跨范式合并分析,确定这些指标的具体范围,以区分两种状态。当平均眼跳振幅在-0.905 ~ 0.693范围内时,表示双眼颜色竞争状态;当范围为0.608-1.294时,反映的是双眼色彩融合的状态。随后,ROC曲线分析证实了实验范式在分析双眼颜色融合和竞争机制方面的有效性,AUC值分别为0.990、0.741和0.967。这些结果揭示了眼动行为作为视觉冲突动态处理的生物标志物的潜力。这一发现为理解双眼视觉的神经计算模型提供了实证支持,为开发基于眼动特征的视觉损害评估工具奠定了方法学基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
10
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Eye Movement Research is an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific periodical devoted to all aspects of oculomotor functioning including methodology of eye recording, neurophysiological and cognitive models, attention, reading, as well as applications in neurology, ergonomy, media research and other areas,
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信