mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Saliency Revisited: Analysis of Mouse Movements versus Fixations

arXiv 1705.10546 ↗First posted 30 May 2017cs.CVcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 30 May 2017.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

12 papers.