Conspicuity and Congruity in Change Detection

  • Jean Underwood
  • Emma Templeman
  • Geoffrey Underwood
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5395)

Abstract

How does visual saliency determine the attention given to objects in a scene, and is the detection of change dependent upon the conspicuity of the changed object? Viewers’ eye movements were recorded during the inspection of pictures of natural scenes. Two versions of a scene were compared to determine whether or not they were the same. The two images were either available at the same time (Experiment 1), or consecutively (Experiment 2). When an object was changed, it either had high or low visual saliency and it either was congruent with the scene or it violated the gist in that it would not be expected to be seen in that context. Previous studies have indicated that incongruous objects sometimes attract early attention, but the inconsistency of this effect leads to the question of whether it is dependent upon conspicuity rather than congruity. Incongruous objects attract early eye fixations here, dismissing the explanation based on visual saliency.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Biederman, I.: Perceiving real-world scenes. Sci. 177, 77–80 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biederman, I., Glass, A.L., Stacy, E.W.: On the information extracted from a glance at a scene. J. Exp. Psychol. 103, 597–600 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biederman, I., Rabinowitz, J.C., Glass, A.L., Stacy, E.W.: On the information extracted from a glance at a scene. J. Exp. Psychol. 103, 597–600 (1974)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davenport, J.L., Potter, M.C.: Scene consistency in object and background perception. Psychol. Sci. 15, 559–564 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R.J., Rabinowitz, J.C.: Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cog. Psychol. 14, 143–177 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mackworth, N.H., Morandi, A.J.: The gaze selects informative details within pictures. Perc. Psychophys. 2, 547–552 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loftus, G.R., Mackworth, N.H.: Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Perc. Perf. 4, 565–572 (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Graef, P., Christiaens, D., d’Ydewalle, G.: Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification. Psychol. Res. 52, 317–329 (1990)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson, J.M., Weeks, P.A., Hollingworth, A.: The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Perc. Perf. 25, 210–228 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Itti, L., Koch, C.: A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vis. Res. 40, 1489–1506 (2000)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Itti, L.: Quantitative modelling of perceptual salience at human eye position. Vis. Cog. 14, 959–984 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parkhurst, D., Law, K., Niebur, E.: Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vis. Res. 42, 107–123 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Underwood, G., Foulsham, T., van Loon, E., Underwood, J.: Visual attention, visual saliency, and eye movements during the inspection of natural scenes. In: Mira, J., Álvarez, J.R. (eds.) IWINAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3562, pp. 459–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Underwood, G., Foulsham, T.: Visual saliency and semantic incongruency influence eye movements when inspecting pictures. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 59, 1931–1949 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pomplun, M., Reingold, E.M., Shen, J.: Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention. Cog. 81, 57–67 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pomplun, M., Sichelschmidt, L., Wagner, K., Clermont, T., Rickheit, G., Ritter, H.: Comparative visual search: A difference that makes a difference. Cog. Sci. 25, 3–36 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galpin, A.J., Underwood, G.: Eye movements during search and detection in comparative visual search. Perc. Psychophys. 67, 1313–1331 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rensink, R.A.: To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8, 368–373 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Regan, J.K., Rensink, R.A., Clark, J.J.: Change-blindness as a result of ‘mudsplashes’. Nature 398, 334 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stirk, J.A., Underwood, G.: Low-level visual saliency does not predict change detection in natural scenes. J. Vis. 7(10):3, 1–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rensink, R.A.: The dynamic representation of scenes. Vis. Cog. 7, 17–42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hollingworth, A., Henderson, J.M.: Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Perc. Perf. 28, 113–136 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hollingworth, A.: The relationship between online visual representation of a scene and long-term scene memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cog. 31, 396–411 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Regan, J.K.: Solving the ‘’real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory. Canad. J. Psychol. 46, 461–488 (1992)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Underwood
    • 1
  • Emma Templeman
    • 2
  • Geoffrey Underwood
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of PsychologyNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations