Where the action could be: Speakers look at graspable objects and meaningful scene regions when describing potential actions

Exploring the Semantic-Inconsistency Effect in Scenes Using a Continuous Measure of Linguistic-Semantic Similarity

Viewers use contextual information to visually explore complex scenes. Object recognition is facilitated by exploiting object-scene relations (which objects are expected in a given scene) and object-object relations (which objects are expected because of the occurrence of other objects). Semantically inconsistent objects deviate from these expectations, so they tend to capture viewers' attention (the semantic-inconsistency effect). Some objects fit the identity of a scene more or less than others, yet semantic inconsistencies have hitherto been operationalized as binary (consistent vs. inconsistent). In an eye-tracking experiment (N = 21 adults), we study the semantic-inconsistency effect in a continuous manner by using the linguistic-semantic similarity of an object to the scene category and to other objects in the scene. We found that both highly consistent and highly inconsistent objects are viewed more than other objects (U-shaped relationship), revealing that the (in)consistency effect is more than a simple binary classification.

Speakers prioritise affordance-based object semantics in scene descriptions

This work investigates the linearisation strategies used by speakers when describing real-world scenes to better understand production plans for multi-utterance sequences. In this study, 30 participants described real-world scenes aloud. To investigate which semantic features of scenes predict order of mention, we quantified three features (meaning, graspability, and interactability) using two techniques (whole-object ratings and feature map values). We found that object-level semantic features, namely those affordance-based, predicted order of mention in a scene description task. Our findings provide the first evidence for an object-related semantic feature that guides linguistic ordering decisions and offer theoretical support for the role of object semantics in scene viewing and description.

Searching for meaning: Local scene semantics guide attention during natural visual search in scenes

Models of visual search in scenes include image salience as a source of attentional guidance. However, because scene meaning is correlated with image salience, it could be that the salience predictor in these models is driven by meaning. To test this proposal, we generated meaning maps that represented the spatial distribution of semantic informativeness in scenes, and salience maps which represented the spatial distribution of conspicuous image features and tested their influence on fixation densities from two object search tasks in real-world scenes. The results showed that meaning accounted for significantly greater variance in fixation densities than image salience, both overall and in early attention across both studies. Here, meaning explained 58% and 63% of the theoretical ceiling of variance in attention across both studies, respectively. Furthermore, both studies demonstrated that fast initial saccades were not more likely to be directed to higher salience regions than slower initial saccades, and initial saccades of all latencies were directed to regions containing higher meaning than salience. Together, these results demonstrated that even though meaning was task-neutral, the visual system still selected meaningful over salient scene regions for attention during search.

Visual attention during seeing for speaking in healthy aging

As we age, we accumulate a wealth of information about the surrounding world. Evidence from visual search suggests that older adults retain intact knowledge for where objects tend to occur in everyday environments (semantic information) that allows them to successfully locate objects in scenes, but may overrely on semantic guidance. We investigated age differences in the allocation of attention to semantically informative and visually salient information in a task in which the eye movements of younger (N = 30, aged 18-24) and older (N = 30, aged 66-82) adults were tracked as they described real-world scenes. We measured the semantic information in scenes based on "meaning map" ratings from a norming sample of young and older adults, and image salience as graph-based visual saliency. Logistic mixed-effects modeling was used to determine whether, controlling for center bias, fixated scene locations differed in semantic informativeness and visual salience from locations that were not fixated, and whether these effects differed for young and older adults. Semantic informativeness predicted fixated locations well overall, as did image salience, although unique variance in the model was better explained by semantic informativeness than image salience. Older adults were less likely to fixate informative locations in scenes than young adults were, though the locations older adults' fixated were independently predicted well by informativeness. These results suggest young and older adults both use semantic information to guide attention in scenes and that older adults do not overrely on semantic information across the board. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Meaning maps detect the removal of local semantic scene content but deep saliency models do not

Meaning mapping uses human raters to estimate different semantic features in scenes, and has been a useful tool in demonstrating the important role semantics play in guiding attention. However, recent work has argued that meaning maps do not capture semantic content, but like deep learning models of scene attention, represent only semantically-neutral image features. In the present study, we directly tested this hypothesis using a diffeomorphic image transformation that is designed to remove the meaning of an image region while preserving its image features. Specifically, we tested whether meaning maps and three state-of-the-art deep learning models were sensitive to the loss of semantic content in this critical diffeomorphed scene region. The results were clear: meaning maps generated by human raters showed a large decrease in the diffeomorphed scene regions, while all three deep saliency models showed a moderate increase in the diffeomorphed scene regions. These results demonstrate that meaning maps reflect local semantic content in scenes while deep saliency models do something else. We conclude the meaning mapping approach is an effective tool for estimating semantic content in scenes.

Meaning and expected surfaces combine to guide attention during visual search in scenes

How do spatial constraints and meaningful scene regions interact to control overt attention during visual search for objects in real-world scenes? To answer this question, we combined novel surface maps of the likely locations of target objects with maps of the spatial distribution of scene semantic content. The surface maps captured likely target surfaces as continuous probabilities. Meaning was represented by meaning maps highlighting the distribution of semantic content in local scene regions. Attention was indexed by eye movements during the search for target objects that varied in the likelihood they would appear on specific surfaces. The interaction between surface maps and meaning maps was analyzed to test whether fixations were directed to meaningful scene regions on target-related surfaces. Overall, meaningful scene regions were more likely to be fixated if they appeared on target-related surfaces than if they appeared on target-unrelated surfaces. These findings suggest that the visual system prioritizes meaningful scene regions on target-related surfaces during visual search in scenes.

Center Bias Does Not Account for the Advantage of Meaning Over Salience in Attentional Guidance During Scene Viewing

Studies assessing the relationship between high-level meaning and low-level image salience on real-world attention have shown that meaning better predicts eye movements than image salience. However, it is not yet clear whether the advantage of meaning over salience is a general phenomenon or whether it is related to center bias: the tendency for viewers to fixate scene centers. Previous meaning mapping studies have shown meaning predicts eye movements beyond center bias whereas saliency does not. However, these past findings were correlational or post hoc in nature. Therefore, to causally test whether meaning predicts eye movements beyond center bias, we used an established paradigm to reduce center bias in free viewing: moving the initial fixation position away from the center and delaying the first saccade. We compared the ability of meaning maps and image salience maps to account for the spatial distribution of fixations with reduced center bias. We found that meaning continued to explain both overall and early attention significantly better than image salience even when center bias was reduced by manipulation. In addition, although both meaning and image salience capture scene-specific information, image salience is driven by significantly greater scene-independent center bias in viewing than meaning. In total, the present findings indicate that the strong association of attention with meaning is not due to center bias.