The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring visual clutter
Open accessAbstract
Visual clutter concerns designers of user interfaces and information visualizations. This should not surprise visual perception researchers because excess and/or disorganized display items can cause crowding, masking, decreased recognition performance due to occlusion, greater difficulty at both segmenting a scene and performing visual search, and so on. Given a reliable measure of the visual clutter in a display, designers could optimize display clutter. Furthermore, a measure of visual clutter could help generalize models like Guided Search (J. M. Wolfe, 1994) by providing a substitute for "set size" more easily computable on more complex and natural imagery. In this article, we present and test several measures of visual clutter, which operate on arbitrary images as input. The first is a new version of the Feature Congestion measure of visual clutter presented in R. Rosenholtz, Y. Li, S. Mansfield, and Z. Jin (2005). This Feature Congestion measure of visual clutter is based on the analogy that the more cluttered a display or scene is, the more difficult it would be to add a new item that would reliably draw attention. A second measure of visual clutter, Subband Entropy, is based on the notion that clutter is related to the visual information in the display. Finally, we test a third measure, Edge Density, used by M. L. Mack and A. Oliva (2004) as a measure of subjective visual complexity. We explore the use of these measures as stand-ins for set size in visual search models and demonstrate that they correlate well with search performance in complex imagery. This includes the search-in-clutter displays of J. M. Wolfe, A. Oliva, T. S. Horowitz, S. Butcher, and A. Bompas (2002) and Bravo and Farid (2004), as well as new search experiments. An additional experiment suggests that color variability, accounted for by Feature Congestion but not the Edge Density measure or the Subband Entropy measure, does matter for visual clutter.
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
A Stochastic Approximation Method
Robbins, H., & Monro, S. (1951) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729586 · Cited by 9,643
The Laplacian pyramid as a compact image code
Burt, P., & Adelson, E. (1983) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcom.1983.1095851 · Cited by 6,077
Rosenholtz, R. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.985 · Cited by 68 · cited 9×
“Rosenholtz’s model predicts the results of a wide range of search experiments involving basic features such as those mentioned above ( Rosenholtz, 1999, 2001a, 2001b; Rosenholtz, Nagy, & Bell, 2004), including experiments that were previously thought to involve search asymmetries (Rosenholtz, 2001a).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
The role of context in object recognition
Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.009 · Cited by 1,063
Pros and cons of GAN evaluation measures
Borji, A. (2019) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2018.10.009 · Cited by 963
Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making
Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003 · Cited by 940
Guided Search 6.0: an updated model of visual search
Wolfe, J. M. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9 · Cited by 703
Kar, K., Kubilius, J., Schmidt, K., Issa, E. B., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0392-5 · Cited by 496
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., & Nakano, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2007-08-16
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 17
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986533012
- Cited by
- 796
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.