mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Do humans and Convolutional Neural Networks attend to similar areas during scene classification: Effects of task and image type

arXiv 2307.13345 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2023cs.CV cs.AI cs.HCcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep Learning models like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are powerful image classifiers, but what factors determine whether they attend to similar image areas as humans do? While previous studies have focused on technological factors, little is known about the role of factors that affect human attention. In the present study, we investigated how the tasks used to elicit human attention maps interact with image characteristics in modulating the similarity between humans and CNN. We varied the intentionality of human tasks, ranging from spontaneous gaze during categorization over intentional gaze-pointing up to manual area selection. Moreover, we varied the type of image to be categorized, using either singular, salient objects, indoor scenes consisting of object arrangements, or landscapes without distinct objects defining the category. The human attention maps generated in this way were compared to the CNN attention maps revealed by explainable artificial intelligence (Grad-CAM). The influence of human tasks strongly depended on image type: For objects, human manual selection produced maps that were most similar to CNN, while the specific eye movement task has little impact. For indoor scenes, spontaneous gaze produced the least similarity, while for landscapes, similarity was equally low across all human tasks. To better understand these results, we also compared the different human attention maps to each other. Our results highlight the importance of taking human factors into account when comparing the attention of humans and CNN.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 81 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2023.

Builds on

23 of 81 references.

References · 23

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  3. 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,082
  4. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
  7. 2016Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networkscited by 2,540
  8. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  9. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  10. 2019Big Transfer (BiT): General Visual Representation Learningcited by 766
  11. 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 703
  12. 2018Recognition in Terra Incognitacited by 655
11 more
  1. 2016What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models?cited by 184
  2. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
  3. 2016Human Attention in Visual Question Answering: Do Humans and Deep Networks Look at the Same Regions?cited by 111
  4. 2018Excessive Invariance Causes Adversarial Vulnerabilitycited by 66
  5. 2020Creation and Validation of a Chest X-Ray Dataset with Eye-tracking and Report Dictation for AI Developmentcited by 55
  6. 2021CYBORG: Blending Human Saliency Into the Loss Improves Deep Learningcited by 33
  7. 2021Human Attention in Fine-grained Classificationcited by 20
  8. 2021Dissonance Between Human and Machine Understandingcited by 18
  9. 2021Comparing object recognition in humans and deep convolutional neural networks -- An eye tracking studycited by 12
  10. 2021Comparing radiologists' gaze and saliency maps generated by interpretability methods for chest x-rayscited by 7
  11. 2021Matching Representations of Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Eye Gaze for Human-Machine Interactioncited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

4 papers.