September 2011
Volume 11, Issue 11
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2011
Quantifying the relative influence of photographer bias and viewing strategy on scene viewing
Author Affiliations
  • Ali Borji
    Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, USA
  • Dicky Nauli Sihite
    Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, USA
  • Laurent Itti
    Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, USA
    Departments of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Southern California, USA
Journal of Vision September 2011, Vol.11, 166. doi:10.1167/11.11.166
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ali Borji, Dicky Nauli Sihite, Laurent Itti; Quantifying the relative influence of photographer bias and viewing strategy on scene viewing. Journal of Vision 2011;11(11):166. doi: 10.1167/11.11.166.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Saccade distributions while observers freely watch natural scenes and videos are often found to be highly biased toward the image center (center-bias effect) (Tatler, 2007). Our quantitative comparison of 30 saliency models over three standard datasets of still images (Bruce & Tsotsos 2006, Kootstra et al., 2008 and Judd et al., 2009), shows that model rankings do not agree. Interestingly, a trivial central Gaussian blob saliency model outperforms many models in regard to predicting where humans look. Two main sources of center-bias are: photographer bias (natural tendency of photographers to place objects of interest near the center) and viewing strategy (tendency of subjects to look at the center to extract more information) (Tseng et al., 2009). In this study, we measure the relative influence of these causes and introduce a less center-biased dataset as a benchmark for fair evaluation of models. From four datasets (three aforementioned and Le Meur et al., 2006), we chose those images with the lowest center-bias index (a defined measure of tendency of human saccade density maps to be concentrated toward center) and selected just 187 out of overall 1250 stimuli. The average center-bias index of accepted images, all original stimuli and Gaussian blob were 0.61, 0.76 (0.88 for Judd) and 1, respectively. Next, to remove the variability in eye recording parameters in datasets, we recorded eye movements of 30 subjects watching these images. The center-bias index for recorded eye movements over selected images and the Judd dataset were 0.76 and 0.861, respectively. After removing the first saccade, these values dropped to 0.68 and to 0.845. Although selected images had less objects at the center, there was still a great amount of saccade density at the center. Our results suggest that, 1) Widely used datasets are center-biased, 2) Photographer bias could be reduced, and 3) Viewing strategy has a higher influence than photographer bias on overall center-bias since removing photographer bias does not reduce overall center-bias significantly.

This work was supported by General Motors, the National Science Foundation, and the Army Research Office. 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×