Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35323870›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2022

Weighting the factors affecting attention guidance during free viewing and visual search: The unexpected role of object recognition uncertainty.

Souradeep Chakraborty, Dimitris Samaras, Gregory J Zelinsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Souradeep ChakrabortyDepartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Dimitris SamarasDepartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Gregory J ZelinskyDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.

Funding

Saccade Target Selection in Naturalistic Visual SearchR01EY030669 · NEI · STATE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY · PI ROBERT M MCPEEK, GREGORY J ZELINSKY · 2019 to 2026
$4.2M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY030669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The factors determining how attention is allocated during visual tasks have been studied for decades, but few studies have attempted to model the weighting of several of these factors within and across tasks to better understand their relative contributions. Here we consider the roles of saliency, center bias, target features, and object recognition uncertainty in predicting the first nine changes in fixation made during free viewing and visual search tasks in the OSIE and COCO-Search18 datasets, respectively. We focus on the latter-most and least familiar of these factors by proposing a new method of quantifying uncertainty in an image, one based on object recognition. We hypothesize that the greater the number of object categories competing for an object proposal, the greater the uncertainty of how that object should be recognized and, hence, the greater the need for attention to resolve this uncertainty. As expected, we found that target features best predicted target-present search, with their dominance obscuring the use of other features. Unexpectedly, we found that target features were only weakly used during target-absent search. We also found that object recognition uncertainty outperformed an unsupervised saliency model in predicting free-viewing fixations, although saliency was slightly more predictive of search. We conclude that uncertainty in object recognition, a measure that is image computable and highly interpretable, is better than bottom-up saliency in predicting attention during free viewing.

Indexed as

Visual PerceptionBiasHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35323870
PMCPMC8963662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.