Literature DB >> 10472199

Subordinate-level object classification reexamined.

I Biederman1, S Subramaniam, M Bar, P Kalocsai, J Fiser.   

Abstract

The classification of a table as round rather than square, a car as a Mazda rather than a Ford, a drill bit as 3/8-inch rather than 1/4-inch, and a face as Tom have all been regarded as a single process termed "subordinate classification." Despite the common label, the considerable heterogeneity of the perceptual processing required to achieve such classifications requires, minimally, a more detailed taxonomy. Perceptual information relevant to subordinate-level shape classifications can be presumed to vary on continua of (a) the type of distinctive information that is present, nonaccidental or metric, (b) the size of the relevant contours or surfaces, and (c) the similarity of the to-be-discriminated features, such as whether a straight contour has to be distinguished from a contour of low curvature versus high curvature. We consider three, relatively pure cases. Case 1 subordinates may be distinguished by a representation, a geon structural description (GSD), specifying a nonaccidental characterization of an object's large parts and the relations among these parts, such as a round table versus a square table. Case 2 subordinates are also distinguished by GSDs, except that the distinctive GSDs are present at a small scale in a complex object so the location and mapping of the GSDs are contingent on an initial basic-level classification, such as when we use a logo to distinguish various makes of cars. Expertise for Cases 1 and 2 can be easily achieved through specification, often verbal, of the GSDs. Case 3 subordinates, which have furnished much of the grist for theorizing with "view-based" template models, require fine metric discriminations. Cases 1 and 2 account for the overwhelming majority of shape-based basic- and subordinate-level object classifications that people can and do make in their everyday lives. These classifications are typically made quickly, accurately, and with only modest costs of viewpoint changes. Whereas the activation of an array of multiscale, multiorientation filters, presumed to be at the initial stage of all shape processing, may suffice for determining the similarity of the representations mediating recognition among Case 3 subordinate stimuli (and faces), Cases 1 and 2 require that the output of these filters be mapped to classifiers that make explicit the nonaccidental properties, parts, and relations specified by the GSDs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10472199     DOI: 10.1007/s004260050047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  8 in total

1.  Identification of partially presented meaningless patterns: effect of completeness and distinctiveness.

Authors:  Alvydas Soliūnas; Ona Gurciniene; Aidas Alaburda; Osvaldas Ruksenas
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2006-08-04

2.  What makes faces special?

Authors:  Xiaomin Yue; Bosco S Tjan; Irving Biederman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Basic-level categorization of intermediate complexity fragments reveals top-down effects of expertise in visual perception.

Authors:  Assaf Harel; Shimon Ullman; Danny Harari; Shlomo Bentin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Developmental differences in the naming of contextually non-categorical objects.

Authors:  Mehmet Ozcan
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2012-02

5.  Stimulus type, level of categorization, and spatial-frequencies utilization: implications for perceptual categorization hierarchies.

Authors:  Assaf Harel; Shlomo Bentin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Are all types of expertise created equal? Car experts use different spatial frequency scales for subordinate categorization of cars and faces.

Authors:  Assaf Harel; Shlomo Bentin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Stochastic accumulation of feature information in perception and memory.

Authors:  Christopher Kent; Duncan Guest; James S Adelman; Koen Lamberts
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-12

8.  Intermediate, Wholistic Shape Representation in Object Recognition: A Pre-Attentive Stage of Processing?

Authors:  Jarrod Hollis; Glyn W Humphreys; Peter M Allen
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.