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.
Tavakoli al @cite_4 looked into the correlation between mouse tracking and eye tracking at finer details, showing the data from the two modalities are not exactly the same. They demonstrated that, while mouse tracking is useful for training a deep model, it is less reliable for model selection and evaluation in particular when the evaluation standards are based on eye tracking.
@cite_4
2619291653
This paper revisits visual saliency prediction by evaluating the recent advancements in this field such as crowd-sourced mouse tracking-based databases and contextual annotations. We pursue a critical and quantitative approach towards some of the new challenges including the quality of mouse tracking versus eye tracking for model training and evaluation. We extend quantitative evaluation of models in order to incorporate contextual information by proposing an evaluation methodology that allows accounting for contextual factors such as text, faces, and object attributes. The proposed contextual evaluation scheme facilitates detailed analysis of models and helps identify their pros and cons. Through several experiments, we find that (1) mouse tracking data has lower inter-participant visual congruency and higher dispersion, compared to the eye tracking data, (2) mouse tracking data does not totally agree with eye tracking in general and in terms of different contextual regions in specific, and (3) mouse tracking data leads to acceptable results in training current existing models, and (4) mouse tracking data is less reliable for model selection and evaluation. The contextual evaluation also reveals that, among the studied models, there is no single model that performs best on all the tested annotations.