Recent advances in deep learning have pushed the performances of visual saliency models way further than it has ever been. Numerous models in the literature present new ways to design neural networks, to arrange gaze pattern data, or to extract as much high and low-level image features as possible in order to create the best saliency representation. However, one key part of a typical deep learning model is often neglected: the choice of the loss function. In this work, we explore some of the most popular loss functions that are used in deep saliency models. We demonstrate that on a fixed network architecture, modifying the loss function can significantly improve (or depreciate) the results, hence emphasizing the importance of the choice of the loss function when designing a model. We also introduce new loss functions that have never been used for saliency prediction to our knowledge. And finally, we show that a linear combination of several well-chosen loss functions leads to significant improvements in performances on different datasets as well as on a different network architecture, hence demonstrating the robustness of a combined metric.
Computational models of saliency prediction, a long standing problem in computer vision, have been studied from so many perspectives that going through all is beyond the scope of this manuscript. We, thus, provide a brief account of relevant works and summarize them in this section. We refer the readers to @cite_21 @cite_29 for an overview.
@cite_29 @cite_21
2032007016 2164084182
Visual attention is a process that enables biological and machine vision systems to select the most relevant regions from a scene. Relevance is determined by two components: 1) top-down factors driven by task and 2) bottom-up factors that highlight image regions that are different from their surroundings. The latter are often referred to as “visual saliency.” Modeling bottom-up visual saliency has been the subject of numerous research efforts during the past 20 years, with many successful applications in computer vision and robotics. Available models have been tested with different datasets (e.g., synthetic psychological search arrays, natural images or videos) using different evaluation scores (e.g., search slopes, comparison to human eye tracking) and parameter settings. This has made direct comparison of models difficult. Here, we perform an exhaustive comparison of 35 state-of-the-art saliency models over 54 challenging synthetic patterns, three natural image datasets, and two video datasets, using three evaluation scores. We find that although model rankings vary, some models consistently perform better. Analysis of datasets reveals that existing datasets are highly center-biased, which influences some of the evaluation scores. Computational complexity analysis shows that some models are very fast, yet yield competitive eye movement prediction accuracy. Different models often have common easy difficult stimuli. Furthermore, several concerns in visual saliency modeling, eye movement datasets, and evaluation scores are discussed and insights for future work are provided. Our study allows one to assess the state-of-the-art, helps to organizing this rapidly growing field, and sets a unified comparison framework for gauging future efforts, similar to the PASCAL VOC challenge in the object recognition and detection domains. Modeling visual attention-particularly stimulus-driven, saliency-based attention-has been a very active research area over the past 25 years. Many different models of attention are now available which, aside from lending theoretical contributions to other fields, have demonstrated successful applications in computer vision, mobile robotics, and cognitive systems. Here we review, from a computational perspective, the basic concepts of attention implemented in these models. We present a taxonomy of nearly 65 models, which provides a critical comparison of approaches, their capabilities, and shortcomings. In particular, 13 criteria derived from behavioral and computational studies are formulated for qualitative comparison of attention models. Furthermore, we address several challenging issues with models, including biological plausibility of the computations, correlation with eye movement datasets, bottom-up and top-down dissociation, and constructing meaningful performance measures. Finally, we highlight current research trends in attention modeling and provide insights for future.