↓ Skip to main content

Stuck on semantics: Processing of irrelevant object-scene inconsistencies modulates ongoing gaze behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Stuck on semantics: Processing of irrelevant object-scene inconsistencies modulates ongoing gaze behavior
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, September 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1203-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim H. W. Cornelissen, Melissa L.-H. Võ

Abstract

People have an amazing ability to identify objects and scenes with only a glimpse. How automatic is this scene and object identification? Are scene and object semantics-let alone their semantic congruity-processed to a degree that modulates ongoing gaze behavior even if they are irrelevant to the task at hand? Objects that do not fit the semantics of the scene (e.g., a toothbrush in an office) are typically fixated longer and more often than objects that are congruent with the scene context. In this study, we overlaid a letter T onto photographs of indoor scenes and instructed participants to search for it. Some of these background images contained scene-incongruent objects. Despite their lack of relevance to the search, we found that participants spent more time in total looking at semantically incongruent compared to congruent objects in the same position of the scene. Subsequent tests of explicit and implicit memory showed that participants did not remember many of the inconsistent objects and no more of the consistent objects. We argue that when we view natural environments, scene and object relationships are processed obligatorily, such that irrelevant semantic mismatches between scene and object identity can modulate ongoing eye-movement behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 49%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Linguistics 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,533
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,009
of 324,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.