MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085411249 · doi:10.1167/10.7.526

Second-order saliency predicts observer eye movements when viewing natural images

2010· article· en· W2085411249 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Johnson, Ali Reza Zarei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSalience (neuroscience)Eye movementFixation (population genetics)LuminanceComputer scienceObserver (physics)Natural (archaeology)SalientFilter (signal processing)Scene statisticsSaccadic maskingEye trackingPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyPerceptionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans move their eyes approximately three times per second while viewing natural images, between which they fixate on features within the image. What humans choose to fixate can be driven by features within the early stages of visual processing (salient features e.g. colour, luminance), top-down control (e.g. task, scene schemas), or a combination of both. Recent models based on bottom-up saliency have shown that it is possible to predict some of the locations that humans choose to fixate. However, none have considered the information contained within the second-order features (e.g. texture) that are present within natural scenes. Here we tested the hypothesis that a salience map incorporating second-order features can predict human fixation locations when viewing natural images. We collected eye movements of 20 human observers while they viewed 80 high-resolution calibrated photographs of natural textures and scenes. To maintain natural viewing behaviour but keep concentration, observers were asked to study the scene in order to recognize sections from it in a follow-up forced-choice test. Interestingly, human observer eye movement patterns when viewing natural textures do not show the same central bias as with natural scenes. Salience maps were constructed for each image using a Gabor-based filter-rectify-filter model that detects the second-order features. We find that the fixation location predicted by a model that incorporates second-order information does not differ from that of human observers when viewing natural textures. However, when the model is applied to natural scenes, we find that the ability of the model to predict human observer eye movements decreases, due to the failure in capturing the central bias. A further improvement to the model would be to incorporate a mixture of bottom-up salience and top-down input in the form of a central bias, which may increase the performance of the model in predicting human eye movements.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207