How best to evaluate a saliency model's ability to predict where humans look in images is an open research question. The choice of evaluation metric depends on how saliency is defined and how the ground truth is represented. Metrics differ in how they rank saliency models, and this results from how false positives and false negatives are treated, whether viewing biases are accounted for, whether spatial deviations are factored in, and how the saliency maps are pre-processed. In this paper, we provide an analysis of 8 different evaluation metrics and their properties. With the help of systematic experiments and visualizations of metric computations, we add interpretability to saliency scores and more transparency to the evaluation of saliency models. Building off the differences in metric properties and behaviors, we make recommendations for metric selections under specific assumptions and for specific applications.

Fig. 1. Left:The top twelve overall most memorable visualizations from our experiment (most to least memorable from top left to bottom right). Middle: The top twelve most memorable visualizations from our experiment when visualizations containing human recognizable cartoons or images are removed (most to least memorable from top left to bottom right). Right: The twelve least memorable visualizations from our experiment (most to least memorable from top left to bottom right).Abstract-An ongoing debate in the Visualization community concerns the role that visualization types play in data understanding. In human cognition, understanding and memorability are intertwined. As a first step towards being able to ask questions about impact and effectiveness, here we ask: "What makes a visualization memorable?" We ran the largest scale visualization study to date using 2,070 single-panel visualizations, categorized with visualization type (e.g., bar chart, line graph, etc.), collected from news media sites, government reports, scientific journals, and infographic sources. Each visualization was annotated with additional attributes, including ratings for data-ink ratios and visual densities. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we collected memorability scores for hundreds of these visualizations, and discovered that observers are consistent in which visualizations they find memorable and forgettable. We find intuitive results (e.g., attributes like color and the inclusion of a human recognizable object enhance memorability) and less intuitive results (e.g., common graphs are less memorable than unique visualization types). Altogether our findings suggest that quantifying memorability is a general metric of the utility of information, an essential step towards determining how to design effective visualizations.

Previous studies have identified that images carry the attribute of memorability, a predictive value of whether a novel image will be later remembered or forgotten. Here we investigate the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect image memorability. First, we find that intrinsic differences in memorability exist at a finer-grained scale than previously documented. Second, we test two extrinsic factors: image context and observer behavior. Building on prior findings that images that are distinct with respect to their context are better remembered, we propose an information-theoretic model of image distinctiveness. Our model can automatically predict how changes in context change the memorability of natural images. In addition to context, we study a second extrinsic factor: where an observer looks while memorizing an image. It turns out that eye movements provide additional information that can predict whether or not an image will be remembered, on a trial-by-trial basis. Together, by considering both intrinsic and extrinsic effects on memorability, we arrive at a more complete and fine-grained model of image memorability than previously available.

In this paper we move beyond memorability and investigate how visualizations are recognized and recalled. For this study we labeled a dataset of 393 visualizations and analyzed the eye movements of 33 participants as well as thousands of participant-generated text descriptions of the visualizations. This allowed us to determine what components of a visualization attract people's attention, and what information is encoded into memory. Our findings quantitatively support many conventional qualitative design guidelines, including that (1) titles and supporting text should convey the message of a visualization, (2) if used appropriately, pictograms do not interfere with understanding and can improve recognition, and (3) redundancy helps effectively communicate the message. Importantly, we show that visualizations memorable "at-a-glance" are also capable of effectively conveying the message of the visualization. Thus, a memorable visualization is often also an effective one.

Abstract. Recently, large breakthroughs have been observed in saliency modeling. The top scores on saliency benchmarks have become dominated by neural network models of saliency, and some evaluation scores have begun to saturate. Large jumps in performance relative to previous models can be found across datasets, image types, and evaluation metrics. Have saliency models begun to converge on human performance? In this paper, we re-examine the current state-of-the-art using a finegrained analysis on image types, individual images, and image regions. Using experiments to gather annotations for high-density regions of human eye fixations on images in two established saliency datasets, MIT300 and CAT2000, we quantify up to 60% of the remaining errors of saliency models. We argue that to continue to approach human-level performance, saliency models will need to discover higher-level concepts in images: text, objects of gaze and action, locations of motion, and expected locations of people in images. Moreover, they will need to reason about the relative importance of image regions, such as focusing on the most important person in the room or the most informative sign on the road. More accurately tracking performance will require finer-grained evaluations and metrics. Pushing performance further will require higher-level image understanding.

Knowing where people look and click on visual designs can provide clues about how the designs are perceived, and where the most important or relevant content lies. The most important content of a visual design can be used for effective summarization or to facilitate retrieval from a database. We present automated models that predict the relative importance of different elements in data visualizations and graphic designs. Our models are neural networks trained on human clicks and importance annotations on hundreds of designs. We collected a new dataset of crowdsourced importance, and analyzed the predictions of our models with respect to ground truth importance and human eye movements. We demonstrate how such predictions of importance can be used for automatic design retargeting and thumbnailing. User studies with hundreds of MTurk participants validate that, with limited post-processing, our importance-driven applications are on par with, or outperform, current state-of-the-art methods, including natural image saliency. We also provide a demonstration of how our importance predictions can be built into interactive design tools to offer immediate feedback during the design process

No abstract

Scores of visual attention models have been developed over the past several decades of research. Differences in implementation, assumptions, and evaluations have made comparison of these models very difficult. Taxonomies have been constructed in an attempt at the organization and classification of models, but are not sufficient at quantifying which classes of models are most capable of explaining available data. At the same time, a multitude of physiological and behavioral findings have been published, measuring various aspects of human and non-human primate visual attention. All of these elements highlight the need to integrate the computational models with the data by (1) operationalizing the definitions of visual attention tasks and (2) designing benchmark datasets to measure success on specific tasks, under these definitions. In this paper, we provide some examples of operationalizing and benchmarking different visual attention tasks, along with the relevant design considerations.