The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes
Open accessAbstract
Human eye-tracking studies have shown that gaze fixations are biased toward the center of natural scene stimuli ("center bias"). This bias contaminates the evaluation of computational models of attention and oculomotor behavior. Here we recorded eye movements from 17 participants watching 40 MTV-style video clips (with abrupt scene changes every 2-4 s), to quantify the relative contributions of five causes of center bias: photographer bias, motor bias, viewing strategy, orbital reserve, and screen center. Photographer bias was evaluated by five naive human raters and correlated with eye movements. The frequently changing scenes in MTV-style videos allowed us to assess how motor bias and viewing strategy affected center bias across time. In an additional experiment with 5 participants, videos were displayed at different locations within a large screen to investigate the influences of orbital reserve and screen center. Our results demonstrate quantitatively for the first time that center bias is correlated strongly with photographer bias and is influenced by viewing strategy at scene onset, while orbital reserve, screen center, and motor bias contribute minimally. We discuss methods to account for these influences to better assess computational models of visual attention and gaze using natural scene stimuli.
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
Object recognition from local scale-invariant features
Lowe, D. G. (1999) · Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.1999.790410 · Cited by 16,472
Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex
Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/14819 · Cited by 3,309
Cited by
What Do Different Evaluation Metrics Tell Us About Saliency Models?
Bylinskii, Z., Judd, T., Oliva, A., Torralba, A., & Durand, F. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2018.2815601 · Cited by 802
The where, what and when of gaze allocation in the lab and the natural environment
Foulsham, T., Walker, E., & Kingstone, A. (2011) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.002 · Cited by 531
DeepFix: A Fully Convolutional Neural Network for Predicting Human Eye Fixations
Kruthiventi, S. S. S., Ayush, K., & Babu, R. V. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2017.2710620 · Cited by 478
Predicting Human Eye Fixations via an LSTM-Based Saliency Attentive Model
Cornia, M., Baraldi, L., Serra, G., & Cucchiara, R. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2018.2851672 · Cited by 474
Variability of eye movements when viewing dynamic natural scenes
Dorr, M., Martinetz, T., Gegenfurtner, K. R., & Barth, E. (2010) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/10.10.28 · Cited by 450
Metadata
- Authors
- Tseng, P. H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2009-07-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 4-4
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097295641
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/9.7.4
- The paper
- Tseng, P. H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L. (2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4
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.