Trends in Cognitive Sciences
ReviewSalience, relevance, and firing: a priority map for target selection
Introduction
The complexity of the visual world exceeds the processing capacity of the human brain [1], which forces us to select one (or a few) object(s) in the scene for more detailed analysis at the expense of other items [2]. This act of selection provides a succinct definition of the term ‘visual attention’. In this article, we explore one basic issue surrounding this selection process – how do we choose the next object of attention 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13?
The salience map provides one conceptual framework that accounts for how the next object is selected. It consists of a topographical map of space, upon which all objects in the visual scene compete. Only the physical distinctiveness of objects factor into this competitive process and, over time, the most salient object is chosen in a winner-take-all fashion [4].
Many disciplines have converged upon the same basic idea: computational and psychological models have implemented concepts similar to the salience map when describing how an object is selected 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25. Over the last several years, the spiking patterns of single neurons have been likened to the salience map as well 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. It is both an exciting prospect and a mark of true convergence across disciplines that concepts put forward in psychological and computational models have evidence in patterns of neural activity in the brain. Now it is time to integrate what we know and use this knowledge to direct future research. Here, we attempt to meet these ends by: (i) defining salience and the salience map; (ii) using these definitions to constrain the neurophysiological evidence and then summarizing these findings; (iii) identifying features of neural data that are not considered by the salience map; and (iv) describing the ramifications of this evidence.
Section snippets
Defining salience and the salience map
The definition of salience provided in psychological and computational theories is very specific – salience refers to the physical, bottom-up distinctiveness of an object 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. It is a relative property that depends on the relationship of one object with respect to other objects in the scene 8, 10. This property of salience is highlighted in Figure 1a: it is much easier to detect the presence of a target in a display when it possesses a distinct feature (Figure 1a left,
Where is the salience map?
These properties constrain the neurophysiological evidence that should be taken to support the salience map. First, the task should be designed to encourage the bottom-up processing of items in the scene, as opposed to goal-directed selection. This is an important constraint because many neurophysiological investigations have used the terms ‘salience’ and ‘relevance’ interchangeably 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30. Second, the neurons should be spatially selective, but otherwise encode visual
Expression of salience in the oculomotor network
There are two mechanisms by which the salience map operates that yield measurable consequences in behavior–salience effects (defined by the task) and inhibition of return. Over the last decade, much has been learned about how salience and inhibition of return are reflected in neural activity through the use of visual search and the non-predictive cue–target task (see Box 1 for interpretations of the neural correlates described here).
The priority map: combining salience and relevance
Salience and the salience map refer to bottom-up processes in attentional selection – neither the relevance of an object nor the goals of observers play any part in this conceptual framework. Yet the terms salience and relevance are often treated as synonyms in the neurophysiological literature 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30. This indiscrepancy might reflect the ‘top-down’ knowledge that neurophysiologists bring to the issue – the relevance of an object influences how it is processed in oculomotor
Relationship between priority and action
How we choose the next object of attention seems to be closely related to how we choose the next target of a saccade [67], as shown through behavioral evidence 68, 69, functional imaging and neuropsychological investigations 35, 70. These correspondences raise the question–what is the relationship between selective attention and oculomotor action?
Computational and psychological theories treat the salience map and action as separate processes [4]. In the brain, however, the neural
Conclusions
The salience map is a concept upon which different disciplines have converged: psychologists and computational scientists have implemented the salience map in their models of attentional selection. In this article, our primary goal was to review the neurophysiological evidence taken to support the salience map. Our secondary goal was to assess if and how evidence from neurophysiology should modify our theoretical perspectives.
With regards to the first goal, we have provided ample evidence
References (84)
Irrelevant singletons capture attention
- et al.
A feature integration theory of attention
Cogn. Psychol.
(1980) Parietal mechanisms of target representation
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
(2002)A saliency map in primary visual cortex
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2002)- et al.
Goal-related activity in V4 during free viewing visual search. Evidence for a ventral stream visual salience map
Neuron
(2003) - et al.
The pulvinar and visual salience
Trends Neurosci.
(1992) Inhibition of return
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2000)Search efficiency but not response interference affects visual selection in frontal eye field
Neuron
(2001)- et al.
The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing
Trends Neurosci.
(2000) Neurophysiological correlates of the reflexive orienting of spatial attention