1,270 research outputs found
Objects predict fixations better than early saliency
Humans move their eyes while looking at scenes and pictures. Eye movements correlate with shifts in attention and are thought to be a consequence of optimal resource allocation for high-level tasks such as visual recognition. Models of attention, such as “saliency maps,” are often built on the assumption that “early” features (color, contrast, orientation, motion, and so forth) drive attention directly. We explore an alternative hypothesis: Observers attend to “interesting” objects. To test this hypothesis, we measure the eye position of human observers while they inspect photographs of common natural
scenes. Our observers perform different tasks: artistic evaluation, analysis of content, and search. Immediately after each presentation, our observers are asked to name objects they saw. Weighted with recall frequency, these objects predict fixations in individual images better than early saliency, irrespective of task. Also, saliency combined with object positions predicts which objects are frequently named. This suggests that early saliency has only an indirect effect on attention, acting
through recognized objects. Consequently, rather than treating attention as mere preprocessing step for object recognition, models of both need to be integrated
Rapid Visual Categorization is not Guided by Early Salience-Based Selection
The current dominant visual processing paradigm in both human and machine
research is the feedforward, layered hierarchy of neural-like processing
elements. Within this paradigm, visual saliency is seen by many to have a
specific role, namely that of early selection. Early selection is thought to
enable very fast visual performance by limiting processing to only the most
salient candidate portions of an image. This strategy has led to a plethora of
saliency algorithms that have indeed improved processing time efficiency in
machine algorithms, which in turn have strengthened the suggestion that human
vision also employs a similar early selection strategy. However, at least one
set of critical tests of this idea has never been performed with respect to the
role of early selection in human vision. How would the best of the current
saliency models perform on the stimuli used by experimentalists who first
provided evidence for this visual processing paradigm? Would the algorithms
really provide correct candidate sub-images to enable fast categorization on
those same images? Do humans really need this early selection for their
impressive performance? Here, we report on a new series of tests of these
questions whose results suggest that it is quite unlikely that such an early
selection process has any role in human rapid visual categorization.Comment: 22 pages, 9 figure
- …