Construct · 4 fields · 7 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, four constructs Nearest construct by meaningagenda-settingcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to salience is agenda-setting.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Koch and Ullman proposed in 1985 that the visual system builds a single topographic saliency map, combining feature contrasts in color, orientation, intensity, and motion into one measure of how much each location differs from its surround, and that attention is drawn to the map's peak. Itti, Koch, and Niebur implemented the map in 1998 as a bottom-up model that predicts where the eyes go in the first few hundred milliseconds, before the viewer's goals intervene. Salience here is a property computed from the image alone: a red berry among green leaves is salient whether or not the observer wants a berry. The construct is the stimulus's capacity to win the competition for gaze, not anything the viewer intends.[1][2]
McCombs and Shaw argued in 1972 that mass media do not tell the public what to think but are stunningly successful in telling it what to think about: the issues a news outlet covers most heavily become the issues audiences rate as most important. Salience is the prominence of an issue, transferred from the media agenda to the public agenda, and measured by the correlation between how much coverage a topic receives and how important survey respondents say it is. The referent is a topic in public discourse, not a stimulus or a person, and the claim concerns a ranking of issues rather than attention to any object in view. Later agenda-setting work adds a second level, the salience of the attributes through which an issue is framed, which stretches the same word further.[3]
Seeley and colleagues identified in 2007 a resting-state network anchored in the anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dissociable from the executive-control network and tracking the processing of behaviourally relevant events. Menon and Uddin proposed in 2010 that this salience network detects the most relevant among internal and external stimuli and switches the brain between the default-mode and central-executive networks accordingly. Salience here names an anatomical system and its function, not a feature of any particular stimulus: the network is said to assign salience, so the word labels both the detector and the thing detected. The construct is a pattern of connectivity in one brain, individual and physiological, and it is recovered from correlated activity rather than from anything in the image or the news.[4][5]
Bordalo, Gennaioli, and Shleifer built a theory in 2012 in which a decision-maker's attention is drawn to the attributes of an option that stand out most against the other options on offer, and those salient attributes are overweighted relative to their objective importance. In the 2013 extension to riskless choice, a good's price is salient when it departs from the prices of competing goods, which reproduces context effects and the pull of decoy options. Salience is neither a stimulus feature nor a brain network here but a comparative property of an attribute within a choice set, defined by how far it deviates from a reference formed by the alternatives. The construct is a weight in a valuation, and it changes when the choice set changes.[6][7]
Next
See how salience sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct