Predicting and Evaluating Saliency for Simplified Polygonal Models

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 286-308

  Howlett, Sarah ^a   Hamill, John ^a   O'sullivan, Carol ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

model simplification; salient features; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750594259     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1077399.1077406     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Brown, V., Huey, D., and Findlay, J. M. 1997. Face detection in peripheral vision: do faces pop out? Perception 26, 1555-1570.
2. Cater, K., Chalmers, A., and Ward, G. 2003. Detail to attention: Exploiting visual tasks for selective rendering. In Proceedings of the 2003 EUROGRAPHICS Symposium on Rendering, P. Christensen and D. Cohen-Or, Eds. EUROGRAPHICS, Hong Kong, China, 270-280.
3. Cignoni, P., Montani, C., Rocchini, C., and Scopigno, R. 1998. Zeta: A resolution modeling system. GMIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing 60, 5, 305-329.
4. Davis, M. H., Moss, H. E., De Mornay, P., and Tyler, L. K. 2003. Spot the difference: Investigations of conceptual structure for living things an artifiacts using speeded word-picture matching. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
5. Duchowski, A. T. 2002. A breadth-first survey of eye tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 455-470.
6. Fitts, P. M., Jones, R., and Milton, J. L. 1950. Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument-landing approaches. Aeronautical Engineering Review 9, 2, 24-29.
7. Garland, M. and Heckbert, P. 1997. Surface simplification using quadric error metrics. Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 209-216.
8. Geren, M. A., Stromer, R., and Mackay, H. A. 1997. Picture naming, matching to sample, and head injury: a stimulus control analysis. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 30, 339-342.
9. Hayhoe, M. 2000. Vision using routines: A functional account of vision. In Visual Cognition 2000 7, 1/2/3, 43-64.
10. Henderson, J. M. 1992. Object identification in context: The visual processing of natural scenes. Canadian Journal of Psychology 46, 3, 319-341.
11. Henderson, J. M. and Hollingworth, A. 1998. Eye movements during scene viewing: An overview. In Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception G. Underwood, Ed. Elsevier Science Ltd., 269-294.
12. Hershler, O. and Hochstein, S. 2003. High-level effects in rapid ‘pop-out’ visual search. In ECVP 2003 Abstract.
13. Hochstein, S., Barlasov, A., Hershler, O., Nitzan, A., and Shneor, S. 2004. Rapid vision is holistic [abstract]. In Journal of Vision 4, 95a.
14. Itti, L., Koch, C., Andniebur, E. 1998. A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. In IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 20, 11, 1254-1259.
15. Jacob, R. J. K. 1993. Eye-movement-based human-computer interaction techniques: Toward non-command interfaces. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 42, 151-190.
16. Kho, Y. and Garland, M. 2003. User-guided simplification. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. 123-126.
17. Kuehn, S. M. and Jolicoeur, P. 1994. Impact of quality of the image, orientation, and similarity of the stimuli on visual search for faces. Perception 23, 95-122.
18. Lawson, R., Bulthoff, H., and Dumbell, S. 2002. Interactions between view changes and shape changes in picture-picture matching. In Technical Report No. 095.
19. Levine, D. N. and Calvanio, R. 1989. Prosopagnosia: A defect in visual configural processing. Brain and Cognition 10, 149-170.
20. Li, G. and Watson, B. 2001. Semiautomatic simplification. In ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics 2001. 43-48.
21. Luebke, D. and Hallen, B. 2001. Perceptually-driven simplification for interactive rendering. In Proceedings of the 12th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering Techniques. 221-223.
22. Nothdurft, H.-C. 1993. Faces and facial expressions do not pop out. Perception 22, 1287-1298.
23. Pojar, E. and Schmalstieg, D. 2003. User-controlled creation of multiresolution meshes. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. 127-130.
24. Reddy, M. 1998. Specification and evaluation of level of detail selection criteria. Virtual Reality: Research, Development and Application 3, 2, 132-143.
25. Rosch, E. 1976. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328-350.
26. Rushmeier, H. 2001. Metrics and geometric simplification SIGGRAPH 2001 course. Seeing is Believing, August, Los Angles.
27. Suzuki, S. and Cavanagh, P. 1995. Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Human Perception and Performance 21, 901-913.
28. Watson, B. 2003. Frontiers in perceptually-based image synthesis: Modeling, rendering, display, validation. In Siggraph Course, San Diego, CA.
29. Watson, B., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., and Worden, A. 1997. Managing level of detail through peripheral degradation: Effects on search performance with a head-mounted display. In ACM Trans. on Computer-Human Interaction 4, 323-346.
30. Watson, B. A., Friedman, A., and Mcgaffey, A. 2000. Using naming time to evaluate quality predictors for model simplification. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 113-120.
31. Watson, B., Friedman, A., and Mcgaffey, A. 2001. Measuring and predicting visual fidelity. In Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series. 213-220.
32. Yee, H., Pattanaik, S., and Greenberg, D. P. 2001. Spatiotemporal sensitivity and visual attention for efficient rendering of dynamic environments. In ACM Trans. Graph. Vol. 20. ACM Press, New York, 39-65.