MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894052977 · doi:10.1167/18.10.384

Across the planes: Differing impacts of foreground and background information on visual search in scenes

2018· article· en· W2894052977 on OpenAlexaff
Louisa LY Man, Monica S. Castelhano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionScene statisticsSet (abstract data type)Visual searchPerceptionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When searching in real world scenes, our visual system needs to efficiently sift through complex visual information to quickly find the target. One prevailing question is how the visual system prioritizes and processes information to perform tasks effectively. Researchers have postulated that scene representations consist of both background and foreground elements, where background elements provide a scaffold for more detailed foreground elements (Davenport & Potter, 2004; Henderson & Hollingworth, 1999; Munneke, Brentari & Peelen, 2013). Here, we defined background information as boundary defining elements such as walls, floors, ceilings (Oliva & Torralba, 2001) and foreground information as moveable objects nested inside the background (Henderson & Hollingworth, 1999). In the current study, we were interested in how scene information from different planes impacts search for targets (foreground versus background). We introduced a new stimulus set: chimera scenes, which have the foreground set of objects belonging to one scene category, and the surrounding background structure belonging to another. We posit that differences in how the background and foreground are processed will result in different search strategies across scene planes. Participants performed search in scenes that had either consistent (Normal) or inconsistent (Chimera) foreground and background contexts. Target objects could appear in either the foreground or background of the scene. Results showed an interesting effect of target placement. Although participants had a longer target latency for foreground than background targets, they had a shorter response times, had fewer fixations to the target, and had a more direct scan path to the target when the target was in the foreground. Moreover, participants were able to discern foreground targets from farther in the periphery than background targets. These results suggest that there are processing differences between searches for target in different planes of the scene. Implications for scene representations and search mechanisms will be discussed. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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