4.3 Article

Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience

Journal

JOURNAL OF VISION
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/11.5.5

Keywords

salience; natural tasks; eye movements; reward; learning; prediction

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [NIH R01 EY05729, NIH R01 EY019174]
  2. Leverhulme Trust [F/00 143/O, F/00 143/J]
  3. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [0932277] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY019174, R01EY005729] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Models of gaze allocation in complex scenes are derived mainly from studies of static picture viewing. The dominant framework to emerge has been image salience, where properties of the stimulus play a crucial role in guiding the eyes. However, salience-based schemes are poor at accounting for many aspects of picture viewing and can fail dramatically in the context of natural task performance. These failures have led to the development of new models of gaze allocation in scene viewing that address a number of these issues. However, models based on the picture-viewing paradigm are unlikely to generalize to a broader range of experimental contexts, because the stimulus context is limited, and the dynamic, task-driven nature of vision is not represented. We argue that there is a need to move away from this class of model and find the principles that govern gaze allocation in a broader range of settings. We outline the major limitations of salience-based selection schemes and highlight what we have learned from studies of gaze allocation in natural vision. Clear principles of selection are found across many instances of natural vision and these are not the principles that might be expected from picture-viewing studies. We discuss the emerging theoretical framework for gaze allocation on the basis of reward maximization and uncertainty reduction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available