4.1 Article

Visual Attention and Cognitive Archaeology: An Eye-Tracking Study of Palaeolithic Stone Tools

期刊

PERCEPTION
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 3-24

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03010066211069504

关键词

saccades; saliency maps; archaeology; vision; action affordances

资金

  1. Junta de Castilla y Leon - European Social Funds [EDU/574/2018]
  2. Spanish Government (Atapuerca Project) [PGC2018-093925-B-C31]
  3. University of Burgos, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study uses eye tracking and mouse-click attention tracking techniques to analyze visual exploration of stone tools, finding that focus is directed towards functional aspects of tools rather than areas of visual salience predicted by models.
The study of lithic technology can provide information on human cultural evolution. This article aims to analyse visual behaviour associated with the exploration of ancient stone artefacts and how this relates to perceptual mechanisms in humans. In Experiment I , we used eye tracking to record patterns of eye fixations while participants viewed images of stone tools, including examples of worked pebbles and handaxes. The results showed that the focus of gaze was directed more towards the upper regions of worked pebbles and on the basal areas for handaxes. Knapped surfaces also attracted more fixation than natural cortex for both tool types. Fixation distribution was different to that predicted by models that calculate visual salience. Experiment 2 was an online study using a mouse-click attention tracking technique and included images of unworked pebbles and 'mixed' images combining the handaxe's outline with the pebble's unworked texture. The pattern of clicks corresponded to that revealed using eye tracking and there were differences between tools and other images. Overall, the findings suggest that visual exploration is directed towards functional aspects of tools. Studies of visual attention and exploration can supply useful information to inform understanding of human cognitive evolution and tool use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据