↓ Skip to main content

Fixations on objects in natural scenes: dissociating importance from salience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fixations on objects in natural scenes: dissociating importance from salience
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00455
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard M. 't Hart, Hannah C. E. F. Schmidt, Christine Roth, Wolfgang Einhäuser

Abstract

The relation of selective attention to understanding of natural scenes has been subject to intense behavioral research and computational modeling, and gaze is often used as a proxy for such attention. The probability of an image region to be fixated typically correlates with its contrast. However, this relation does not imply a causal role of contrast. Rather, contrast may relate to an object's "importance" for a scene, which in turn drives attention. Here we operationalize importance by the probability that an observer names the object as characteristic for a scene. We modify luminance contrast of either a frequently named ("common"/"important") or a rarely named ("rare"/"unimportant") object, track the observers' eye movements during scene viewing and ask them to provide keywords describing the scene immediately after. When no object is modified relative to the background, important objects draw more fixations than unimportant ones. Increases of contrast make an object more likely to be fixated, irrespective of whether it was important for the original scene, while decreases in contrast have little effect on fixations. Any contrast modification makes originally unimportant objects more important for the scene. Finally, important objects are fixated more centrally than unimportant objects, irrespective of contrast. Our data suggest a dissociation between object importance (relevance for the scene) and salience (relevance for attention). If an object obeys natural scene statistics, important objects are also salient. However, when natural scene statistics are violated, importance and salience are differentially affected. Object salience is modulated by the expectation about object properties (e.g., formed by context or gist), and importance by the violation of such expectations. In addition, the dependence of fixated locations within an object on the object's importance suggests an analogy to the effects of word frequency on landing positions in reading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 4 6%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 34%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Engineering 5 8%
Linguistics 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2013.
All research outputs
#16,409,687
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#17,708
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,495
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#649
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.