Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not

Finding the meaning in meaning maps: Quantifying the roles of semantic and non-semantic scene information in guiding visual attention

In real-world vision, people prioritise the most informative scene regions via eye-movements. According to the cognitive guidance theory of visual attention, viewers allocate visual attention to those parts of the scene that are expected to be the most informative. The expected information of a scene region is coded in the semantic distribution of that scene. Meaning maps have been proposed to capture the spatial distribution of local scene semantics in order to test cognitive guidance theories of attention. Notwithstanding the success of meaning maps, the reason for their success has been contested. This has led to at least two possible explanations for the success of meaning maps in predicting visual attention. On the one hand, meaning maps might measure scene semantics. On the other hand, meaning maps might measure scene features, overlapping with, but distinct from, scene semantics. This study aims to disentangle these two sources of information by considering both conceptual information and non-semantic scene entropy simultaneously. We found that both semantic and non-semantic information is captured by meaning maps, but scene entropy accounted for more unique variance in the success of meaning maps than conceptual information. Additionally, some explained variance was unaccounted for by either source of information. Thus, although meaning maps may index some aspect of semantic information, their success seems to be better explained by non-semantic information. We conclude that meaning maps may not yet be a good tool to test cognitive guidance theories of attention in general, since they capture non-semantic aspects of local semantic density and only a small portion of conceptual information. Rather, we suggest that researchers should better define the exact aspect of cognitive guidance theories they wish to test and then use the tool that best captures that desired semantic information. As it stands, the semantic information contained in meaning maps seems too ambiguous to draw strong conclusions about how and when semantic information guides visual attention.

Searching for meaning: Local scene semantics guide attention during natural visual search in scenes

Models of visual search in scenes include image salience as a source of attentional guidance. However, because scene meaning is correlated with image salience, it could be that the salience predictor in these models is driven by meaning. To test this proposal, we generated meaning maps that represented the spatial distribution of semantic informativeness in scenes, and salience maps which represented the spatial distribution of conspicuous image features and tested their influence on fixation densities from two object search tasks in real-world scenes. The results showed that meaning accounted for significantly greater variance in fixation densities than image salience, both overall and in early attention across both studies. Here, meaning explained 58% and 63% of the theoretical ceiling of variance in attention across both studies, respectively. Furthermore, both studies demonstrated that fast initial saccades were not more likely to be directed to higher salience regions than slower initial saccades, and initial saccades of all latencies were directed to regions containing higher meaning than salience. Together, these results demonstrated that even though meaning was task-neutral, the visual system still selected meaningful over salient scene regions for attention during search.