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
