The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative Analysis of Human-Model Agreement in Visual Saliency Modeling: A Comparative Study
Abstract
Visual attention is a process that enables biological and machine vision systems to select the most relevant regions from a scene. Relevance is determined by two components: 1) top-down factors driven by task and 2) bottom-up factors that highlight image regions that are different from their surroundings. The latter are often referred to as "visual saliency." Modeling bottom-up visual saliency has been the subject of numerous research efforts during the past 20 years, with many successful applications in computer vision and robotics. Available models have been tested with different datasets (e.g., synthetic psychological search arrays, natural images or videos) using different evaluation scores (e.g., search slopes, comparison to human eye tracking) and parameter settings. This has made direct comparison of models difficult. Here, we perform an exhaustive comparison of 35 state-of-the-art saliency models over 54 challenging synthetic patterns, three natural image datasets, and two video datasets, using three evaluation scores. We find that although model rankings vary, some models consistently perform better. Analysis of datasets reveals that existing datasets are highly center-biased, which influences some of the evaluation scores. Computational complexity analysis shows that some models are very fast, yet yield competitive eye movement prediction accuracy. Different models often have common easy/difficult stimuli. Furthermore, several concerns in visual saliency modeling, eye movement datasets, and evaluation scores are discussed and insights for future work are provided. Our study allows one to assess the state-of-the-art, helps to organizing this rapidly growing field, and sets a unified comparison framework for gauging future efforts, similar to the PASCAL VOC challenge in the object recognition and detection domains.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Computational modelling of visual attention
Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2001) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/35058500 · Cited by 4,733
Self-citationGorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p281059 · Cited by 3,181
Natural Image Statistics and Neural Representation
Simoncelli, E. P., & Olshausen, B. A. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1193 · Cited by 2,460
What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1411 · Cited by 1,766 · cited 1×
“In [21], [60], authors enumerate and discuss features that influence attention.”
BackgroundMemory Representations in Natural Tasks
Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66 · Cited by 817
Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience
Tatler, B. W., Hayhoe, M. M., Land, M. F., & Ballard, D. H. (2011) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/11.5.5 · Cited by 775
Cited by
Bernal, J., Sánchez, F. J., Fernández-Esparrach, G., Gil, D., Rodríguez, C., & Vilariño, F. (2015) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2015.02.007 · Cited by 2,191
Design and evaluation of a foveated video streaming service for commodity client devices
Ryoo, J., Yun, K., Samaras, D., Das, S. R., & Zelinsky, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Multimedia Systems · doi:10.1145/2910017.2910592 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Borji, A., Sihite, D. N., & Itti, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-69
- ISSN
- 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0042
- OpenAlex
- W2032007016
- Cited by
- 613
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 56.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative Analysis of Human-Model Agreement in Visual Saliency Modeling: A Comparative Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tip.2012.2210727
- The paper
- Borji, A., Sihite, D. N., & Itti, L. (2013). Quantitative Analysis of Human-Model Agreement in Visual Saliency Modeling: A Comparative Study. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/tip.2012.2210727
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.