Rothkegel et al. 22 Table 4: Output of LMM for Experiment 4 Fixed Effect Estimate SE t (Intercept) 2 . 858 0 . 157 18 . 194 ∗∗∗ 0 ms − 0 . 309 0 . 093 − 3 . 312 ∗∗∗ 125 ms 0 . 155 0 . 083 1 . 877 saccade latency 0 . 224 0 . 122 1 . 837 saccade latency x 0 ms 0 . 454 0 . 174 2 . 611 ∗∗ saccade latency x 125 ms − 0 . 189 0 . 154 − 1 . 222 Random effects variance: Subjects 0 . 2607 Random effects variance: Images 0 . 1845 Log-Likelihood − 1877 . 00 Deviance 3754 . 01 AIC 3772 . 01 BIC 3817 . 26 N 1128 $^{∗}$p < . 05 , $^{∗∗}$p < . 01 , $^{∗∗∗}$p < . 001 higher than 1 s we can replicate an influence of saccade latencies on DTC of the second fixation. In general saccade latency seems to be a strong mediating factor of the CFB. In addition, we observed long initial saccade latencies when participants started at the image center. This is particularly worrying, because the first fixation is usually omitted from analyses in scene viewing experiments. When comparing Experiment 4 to the remaining experiments, the CFB was strongest when participants started at the image center without pre-trial fixation time (0 ms). Only after about 1 s DTC (& CFB) was comparable between experiments and pre-trial conditions. Since most scene viewing experiments last five seconds or less (c.f., data sets in MIT saliency benchmark; Bylinskii et al., 2015) a substantial proportion of fixations is biased towards the center during a standard scene viewing experiment. A combination of a non-zero pre-trial fixation time and adjustments of the starting position will reduce the CFB and may help to better understand target selection during scene viewing. We will further comment on this issue in the general discussion.