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.

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

Meaning mapping uses human raters to estimate different semantic features in scenes, and has been a useful tool in demonstrating the important role semantics play in guiding attention. However, recent work has argued that meaning maps do not capture semantic content, but like deep learning models of scene attention, represent only semantically-neutral image features. In the present study, we directly tested this hypothesis using a diffeomorphic image transformation that is designed to remove the meaning of an image region while preserving its image features. Specifically, we tested whether meaning maps and three state-of-the-art deep learning models were sensitive to the loss of semantic content in this critical diffeomorphed scene region. The results were clear: meaning maps generated by human raters showed a large decrease in the diffeomorphed scene regions, while all three deep saliency models showed a moderate increase in the diffeomorphed scene regions. These results demonstrate that meaning maps reflect local semantic content in scenes while deep saliency models do something else. We conclude the meaning mapping approach is an effective tool for estimating semantic content in scenes.

There is no evidence that meaning maps capture semantic information relevant to gaze guidance: Reply to Henderson, Hayes, Peacock, and Rehrig (2021)

The concerns raised by Henderson, Hayes, Peacock, and Rehrig (2021) are based on misconceptions of our work. We show that Meaning Maps (MMs) do not predict gaze guidance better than a state-of-the-art saliency model that is based on semantically-neutral, high-level features. We argue that there is therefore no evidence to date that MMs index anything beyond these features. Furthermore, we show that although alterations in meaning cause changes in gaze guidance, MMs fail to capture these alterations. We agree that semantic information is important in the guidance of eye-movements, but the contribution of MMs for understanding its role remains elusive.

Meaning maps and saliency models based on deep convolutional neural networks are insensitive to image meaning when predicting human fixations

Eye movements are vital for human vision, and it is therefore important to understand how observers decide where to look. Meaning maps (MMs), a technique to capture the distribution of semantic information across an image, have recently been proposed to support the hypothesis that meaning rather than image features guides human gaze. MMs have the potential to be an important tool far beyond eye-movements research. Here, we examine central assumptions underlying MMs. First, we compared the performance of MMs in predicting fixations to saliency models, showing that DeepGaze II - a deep neural network trained to predict fixations based on high-level features rather than meaning - outperforms MMs. Second, we show that whereas human observers respond to changes in meaning induced by manipulating object-context relationships, MMs and DeepGaze II do not. Together, these findings challenge central assumptions underlying the use of MMs to measure the distribution of meaning in images.