Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15797780

Quantifying object salience by equating distractor effects.

Abstract

It is commonly believed that objects viewed in certain contexts may be more or less salient. Measurements of salience have usually relied on asking observers "How much does this object stand out against the background?". In this study, we measured the salience of objects by assessing the distraction they produce for subjects searching for a different, pre-specified target. Distraction was measured through response times, but changes in response times were not assumed to be a linear measure of distracting potency. The analysis rested on measuring the effects of varying disparities--in size, luminance, and both-between a target object, a key distractor, and other background items. Our results indicate: (1) object salience defined by luminance or size disparity is determined by the ratio between its defining feature value and the corresponding feature value of background items; this finding is congenial to Weber's law for discrimination thresholds. (2) If we define salience as the logarithm of a feature value ratio, then salience increases approximately as fast due to increase in area as due to increase in luminance. (3) The sum of salience arising from object-background disparity in both size and luminance is larger than their vector sum (orthogonal vectors), but smaller than their scalar sum.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Liqiang Huang, Harold Pashler. 2005. Quantifying object salience by equating distractor effects.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.01.013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗