Eye movements are vital for human vision, and it is therefore important to understand how observers decide where to look. Meaning maps (MMs), a technique to capture the distribution of semantic importance across an image, have recently been proposed to support the hypothesis that meaning rather than image features guide human gaze. MMs have the potential to be an important tool far beyond eye-movements research. Here, we examine central assumptions underlying MMs. First, we compared the performance of MMs in predicting fixations to saliency models, showing that DeepGaze II-a deep neural network trained to predict fixations based on high-level features rather than meaning-outperforms MMs. Second, we show that whereas human observers respond to changes in meaning induced by manipulating object-context relationships, MMs and DeepGaze II do not. Together, these findings challenge central assumptions underlying the use of MMs to measure the distribution of meaning in images.

No abstract

No abstract

Eye movements are vital for human vision, and it is therefore important to understand how observers decide where to look. Meaning maps (MMs), a technique to capture the distribution of semantic importance across an image, have recently been proposed to support the hypothesis that meaning rather than image features guide human gaze. MMs have the potential to be an important tool far beyond eye-movements research. Here, we examine central assumptions underlying MMs. First, we compared the performance of MMs in predicting fixations to saliency models, showing that DeepGaze II – a deep neural network trained to predict fixations based on high-level features rather than meaning – outperforms MMs. Second, we show that whereas human observers respond to changes in meaning induced by manipulating object-context relationships, MMs and DeepGaze II do not. Together, these findings challenge central assumptions underlying the use of MMs to measure the distribution of meaning in images.