Literature DB >> 2526854

Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: what a superordinate is good for.

G L Murphy1, E J Wisniewski.   

Abstract

Many studies have shown that subjects are faster at categorizing objects into "basic" concepts than into more general superordinate concepts. However, all of these studies have used a categorization task in which single, isolated objects are identified. There is good reason to believe that superordinate concepts are typically used to refer to collections of objects rather than to individual objects. For example, people more often use the term furniture to refer to a number of pieces of furniture rather than to name a single piece. This suggest that superordinate concepts include information about multiple objects and their common relations, particularly the typical scenes in which such objects appear. Four experiments examined this possibility by investigating whether the basic concept advantage will decrease or reverse itself when subjects are asked to categorize an object as part of a scene. The results showed that the basic-superordinate difference did decrease when subjects categorized objects in scenes. Furthermore, when an object was placed in an inappropriate scene, there was more interference for superordinate identifications. The results suggest qualitative differences in the representations of superordinate and basic concepts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2526854     DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  10 in total

1.  Detecting changes between real-world objects using spatiochromatic filters.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

2.  Sensitivity and salience of form-function correlations of objects: evidence from feature tasks.

Authors:  J Frederico Marques; Mafalda M Mendes; Ana Raposo
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-07

3.  Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning.

Authors:  Ansgar Hantsch; Jörg D Jescheniak; Herbert Schriefers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-09

4.  Parts in object concepts: experiments with artificial categories.

Authors:  G L Murphy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1991-09

5.  A rose by any other name is still a rose: A reinterpretation of Hantsch and Mädebach.

Authors:  Eduardo Navarrete; Bradford Z Mahon
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2012-08-28

6.  Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects.

Authors:  Kirsten I Taylor; Barry J Devereux; Kadia Acres; Billi Randall; Lorraine K Tyler
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2011-12-03

7.  The Neuroscience of Storing and Molding Tool Action Concepts: How "Plastic" is Grounded Cognition?

Authors:  J C Mizelle; Lewis A Wheaton
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-11-15

8.  The characteristics and limits of rapid visual categorization.

Authors:  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-10-03

9.  Object Categorization in Finer Levels Relies More on Higher Spatial Frequencies and Takes Longer.

Authors:  Matin N Ashtiani; Saeed R Kheradpisheh; Timothée Masquelier; Mohammad Ganjtabesh
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-25

10.  The time-course of visual categorizations: you spot the animal faster than the bird.

Authors:  Marc J-M Macé; Olivier R Joubert; Jean-Luc Nespoulous; Michèle Fabre-Thorpe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.