MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155482448 · doi:10.1109/robio.2009.4913041

Re-mapping of visual saliency in overt attention: A particle filter approach for robotic systems

2009· article· en· W2155482448 on OpenAlexaff
Momotaz Begum, Fakhri Karray, George K. I. Mann, Raymond G. Gosine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle filterSaliency mapVisual attentionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceInhibition of returnComputer scienceSalientProcess (computing)Eye trackingFilter (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)Representation (politics)PsychologyPerceptionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Saliency map’, a scalar, two-dimensional representation of visual saliency, is at the center of almost all of the existing models of visual attention. Attention is directed toward the most salient location in the saliency map. The mechanism of ‘inhibition of return’ (IOR) suppresses the saliency of recently attended location and thereby enabling the shifts of attention toward different locations in the saliency map in order of decreasing saliency. This process performs well as longs as the attention is directed covertly. For overt attention with head movements, which is practically the case in robotic applications, the visual saliency as well as the frame of reference in which the IOR is expressed change after every head movement. These pose a set of computational challenges in implementing attention behavior and IOR. This paper argues that the re-mapping of visual saliency and dynamic shift of IOR emerge naturally in a particle filter based framework of visual attention. Experiments on a real camera head validate the arguments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207