1 / 20

Semantic consistency versus perceptual salience in visual scenes: Findings from change detection

Semantic consistency versus perceptual salience in visual scenes: Findings from change detection. Spotorno , S., Tatler , B. W., & Faure, S. (2013). Acta Psychological, 142(2) , 168-176 . .

varian
Download Presentation

Semantic consistency versus perceptual salience in visual scenes: Findings from change detection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Semantic consistency versus perceptual salience in visual scenes: Findings from change detection Spotorno, S., Tatler, B. W., & Faure, S. (2013). ActaPsychological, 142(2), 168-176.

  2. Objects are primarily selected on a perceptual basis with subsequent and supplementary effect of semantic consistency

  3. Introduction • The allocation of attention during scene perception is likely to be guided by both low-level perceptual and higher-level information.

  4. Semanticvs.Perceptual • Detection can be easier for changes that are visually salient (Pringle et al., 2001, Spotorno and Faure, 2011a and Spotorno and Faure, 2011b) • Contextual meaning and semantic relations within a scene can also play a substantial role when allocating attention toward the changes and in enhancing memory. (Stirk& Underwood, 2007, Hollingworth & Henderson, 2000)

  5. Semantic • “central interest”——An advantage for detecting changes that involve the most consistent objects in the scene.( Auvray and O'Regan, 2003 , Kelley et al., 2003 , O'Regan et al., 2000 , Pringle et al., 2001 , Rensink et al., 1997 and Rensink et al., 2000 ) • semantically inconsistent objects or changes may be prioritised.( Gordon, 2004 , Gordon, 2006 , Hollingworth and Henderson, 2000 , Hollingworth and Henderson, 2003 and Stirk and Underwood, 2007 )

  6. Perceptual • Some support for the notion that overt selection correlates with visual conspicuity, or visual salience ( Itti & Koch, 2000 ) has been found in scene viewing studies. (eg, Mananet al., 1997 , Parkhurst et al., 2002 and Reinagel and Zador, 1999 ) • Evidence for better or faster change detection for objects of high perceptual salience, either in conditions of overt ( Pringle et al., 2001 ) or covert ( Spotorno and Faure, 2011a and Spotorno and Faure, 2011b ) attention.

  7. Materials • 16 coloured drawings, plus 4 for practice(PFLI — Bortolini, 1995 ) • 2 versions ——diagnostic or inconsistent • All the scenes were evaluated by 8 independent observers • 4 observers viewed the “diagnostic object” other 4 viewed the “inconsistent object” versions of the images.

  8. Up to 3 objects  ——diagnostic or inconsistent • Rate on a 6-point Likert scale the probability of occurrence in the scene (from 1, minimum, to 6, maximum) of a set of 7 objects pre-selected by the experimenters.

  9. Half (8) of the diagnostic objects occurred among the first 3 most salient elements of the image. • The other 8 were not selected by the software among the first 7, and therefore we considered them as low salient objects.

  10. One-Shot paradigm  1.. Trial examples. (1A) Deletion of a low salience/high consistency (i.e., diagnostic) item. (1B) Addition of a high salience/high inconsistency item.

  11. Result •  There was a main effect of Salience 80.32% vs. 49.7%

  12. Result • no significant main effects for Type of Change or Consistency Diagnostic: 65.91%Inconsistent: 64.11 64.84% 65.17%

  13. Result • Consistency and Salience interacted significantly • (High saliency)Performance was better for diagnostic than for inconsistent changes (82.96% vs. 77.69%)

  14. Result • The interaction between Type of Change and Consistency was significant 68.73％ 61.62％ 63.09％ 66.6％

  15. Repetition of scenes and changes • The first changing version of the scene was detected with lower accuracy (56.74%) • Accuracy was no different between the second (64.94%), third (67.29%) or fourth (68.85%) change for each scene

  16. main effect: Salience,  Type of Change • Interaction: Consistency and SalienceF（1，30）= 4.23，p  = .049

  17. main effect: Salience,  Type of Change • Interaction: Consistency and SalienceF（1，30）= 4.23，p  = .049

  18. This study was the first to compare directly objects that are diagnostic for the scene's gist and those that are inconsistent with it within a single experiment.

  19. Semantic consistency in change detection • presentation times  • types of images • Degree of clutter

  20. Semantic analysis of perceptually salient objects reveals an inconsistency with the gist, further processing time is required. • a specific difficulty for the addition of highly salient inconsistent objects.

More Related