Visual Search with selective tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual attention involves much more than simply the selection of next fixation for the eyes or for a camera system. Selective Tuning (ST) (Tsotsos et al. 1995;2005) presents a framework for modeling this broader view of attention and in this work we show how it performs in covert visual search tasks by comparing its performance to the same input visual displays that human subjects have seen and qualitatively comparing the model's performance to human performance. Two implementations of ST have been developed. The Motion Model (MM) recognizes and attends to motion patterns and the Object Recognition Model (ORM) recognizes and attends to simple objects formed by the conjunction of various features. Two experiments were carried out in the motion domain. A simple odd-man-out search for CCW rotating octagon among identical CW rotating octagons produced linear increase in search time with the increase of set size. The second experiment was similar to one described in Thornton and Gilden(2001) paper and produced qualitatively similar results. The validity of the ORM was first tested by successfully duplicating the results of Nagy and Sanchez(1990). Our second experiment aimed at an evaluation of the model's performance for the feature-conjunction-inefficient continuum search slopes (Wolfe, 1998). For conjunction search we followed Bichot and Schall(1999) (find a red circle among green circles and red crosses). For feature search ORM looked for a circle among crosses and for inefficient search we simulated Egeth and Dagenbach(1991). Inefficient search produced a slope of 0.49, followed by conjunction search (slope of 0.36) and feature search was practically flat (slope of 0.00), these results show the same kind continuum of search slopes as described by Wolfe(1998). We conclude that ST provides a valid explanatory mechanism for human covert visual search performance, an explanation going far beyond the conventional saliency map based explanations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".