Novelty competes with saliency for attention
Vision Research, ISSN: 0042-6989, Vol: 168, Page: 42-52
2020
- 37Citations
- 70Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations37
- Citation Indexes35
- 35
- CrossRef7
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures70
- Readers70
- 70
Article Description
A highly debated question in attention research is to what extent attention is biased by bottom-up factors such as saliency versus top-down factors as governed by the task. Visual search experiments in which participants are briefly familiarized with the task and then see a novel stimulus unannounced and for the first time support yet another factor, showing that novel and surprising features attract attention. In the present study, we tested whether gaze behavior as an indicator for attentional prioritization can be predicted accurately within displays containing both salient and novel stimuli by means of a priority map that assumes novelty as an additional source of activation. To that aim, we conducted a visual search experiment where a color singleton was presented for the first time in the surprise trial and manipulated the color-novelty of the remaining non-singletons between participants. In one group, the singleton was the only novel stimulus (“one-new”), whereas in another group, the non-singleton stimuli were likewise novel (“all-new”). The surprise trial was always target absent and designed such that top-down prioritization of any color was unlikely. The results show that the singleton in the all-new group captured the gaze less strongly, with more early fixations being directed to the novel non-singletons. Overall, the fixation pattern can accurately be explained by noisy priority maps where saliency and novelty compete for gaze control.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698920300067; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2020.01.004; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85079692933&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32088400; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0042698920300067; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2020.01.004
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know