Rothkegel et al. 2 and color contrast; Itti, Koch, & Niebur, 1998; Torralba, 2003; Le Meur, Le Callet, Barba, & Thoreau, 2006) as well as higher level cognitive processes like the observers’ scene understanding (Loftus & Mackworth, 1978; Henderson, Weeks Jr, & Hollingworth, 1999), task (Yarbus, Haigh, & Rigss, 1967; Castelhano & Henderson, 2008), or probability of reward (Hayhoe & Ballard, 2005; Tatler, Hayhoe, Land, & Ballard, 2011). Besides low-level image features and high-level cognition, systematic tendencies have a strong impact on how humans look at pictures (Tatler & Vincent, 2009; Le Meur & Liu, 2015). A dominant systematic tendency in natural scene viewing is the central fixation bias (CFB; Buswell, 1935; Tatler, 2007; Tseng, Carmi, Cameron, Munoz, & Itti, 2009). Regardless of stimulus material (Tatler, 2007; Tseng et al., 2009), head position (Vitu, Kapoula, Lancelin, & Lavigne, 2004), initial fixation position (Tatler, 2007; Bindemann, Scheepers, Ferguson, & Burton, 2010), or image position (Bindemann, 2010), the eyes tend to initially fixate close to the center of an image when presented to a human observer on a computer screen. After several explanations of the CFB had been ruled out, two hypotheses remained. First, the image center might be the best location to maximize information extraction from scenes (Najemnik & Geisler, 2005; Tatler, 2007) – at least for typical photographs found in image databases and on the internet (c.f; Wichmann, Drewes, Rosas, & Gegenfurtner, 2010). Second, the center of an image provides a strategic advantage to start inspection of a suddenly appearing stimulus (Tatler, 2007). Since realworld visual input doesn’t suddenly appear and peripheral information of an upcoming stimulus is usually available, the CFB might be a laboratory artifact to some degree. Also, natural visual stimuli do not have rigid boundaries like a computer screen. A reduction of the CFB in mobile eye tracking data (’t Hart et al., 2009; Ioannidou, Hermens, Hodgson, et al., 2016) supports this idea.