Jolicoeur, P. et al. (1984) Pictures and names: making the connection. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 243 -- 275  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....recognition tasks such as subordinate level recognition independent of object class. The problem with many experiments investigating the relationship between categorization and identification which claim that there is an advantage of basic level recognition versus subordinate level recognition [56, 30] is that the tasks used for the different recognition levels are of different difficulty: Discriminating a face from a chair (in categorization) is a much easier task than discriminating the faces of the two authors (in identification) as the latter two are more similar to each other. Assuming ....

P. Jolicoeur, M.A. Gluck, and S.M. Kosslyn. Pictures and names: making the connection. Cognit. Psych., 16:243--275, 1984.

....birds, fish, or plants. The existence of these two, broadly different, forms of perceptual and cognitive processing raises several questions: What cognitive and neural processes support our ability to extract and use comparatively abstract versus highly specific information about visual forms [29,52,49] Are different regions of the brain responsible for processing specific visual form information as opposed to more abstract types of information [23,32,37] Corresponding author. Tel. 44 118 931 6668. E mail address: w.koutstaal reading.ac.uk (W. Koutstaal) 0028 3932 00 see front ....

Jolicoeur P, Gluck M, Kosslyn SM. Pictures and names: making the connection. Cognitive Psychology 1984;16:243 -- 75.

.... Biederman (in press; Biederman Gerhardstein, 1993) argued that the experiments showing large recognition costs effectively tested a type of within category, or subordinate level, classification, whereas Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993) tested between category, or entry level, classification (Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, Boyes Braem, 1976) According to Biederman, particularly difficult, within category decisions may provoke artifactual problem solving processes that contaminate behavioral results. From the other side of the debate, Tarr and Bulthoff (1995) made a very similar ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S.M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243--275.

....geometry of the object, e.g. the locations of the vertices of a triangular mesh that approximates the object s shape. Finally, intrinsic and extrinsic factors (geometry and viewing conditions) together determine the appearance of the object. important) cases such as face recognition, entry level (Jolicoeur et al. 1984) names of objects correspond to categories rather to individuals, and it is the category of the object that the visual system is required to determine. Thus, the observer is confronted with potential variation in the intrinsic shape of an object, because objects called by the same name do not, ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., and Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16:243--275.

....in recognition. 3. Explanatory power for entry level recognition. Biederman and Gerhardstein suggest that GSD theory is an accountofentry level recognition performance, that is, the particular level of categorical abstraction assigned to objects at the time of initial identi#cation #Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984#. In response, we consider the predictions of GSD theory relative to the representational properties necessary to explain entry level recognition. First, there are instances where GSDs will represent di#erent entry level objects as members of the same category #e.g. a cow and a horse#. Second, ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. M. #1984#. Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.

....As observers we are able to identify objects under a wide array of conditions that confound even the most powerful computer vision systems. For example, we can recognize objects at many different categorical levels. Often, however, it is assumed that objects are first identified at the entry level (Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984) defined as the name which is generated or matched most rapidly to a given object, e.g. apple or bird (although less typical instances may be identified at a more specific level, e.g. penguins ) While entry level recognition is certainly an important element of everyday recognition, it ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.

....Object Recognition 4 recognized. Rosch et al. #1976# presented evidence that familiar objects are #rst recognized at a level of abstraction referred to as the #basic level #or #entry level, when de#ned independently for each object as the level at which contact is made #rst in semantic memory, Jolicoeur, Gluck Kosslyn, 1984#. Objects in di#erent basic level categories #e.g. chair or bicycle# generally di#er in their parts and con#guration and so are easily discriminable #Tversky Hemenway, 1984#. In contrast, recognizing objects at the #subordinate level #e.g. desk chair vs. arm chair# requires additional time ....

....categories #e.g. chair or bicycle# generally di#er in their parts and con#guration and so are easily discriminable #Tversky Hemenway, 1984#. In contrast, recognizing objects at the #subordinate level #e.g. desk chair vs. arm chair# requires additional time and perceptual processing #Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984#, relying more heavily on multiple perceptual dimensions, such as shading, texture, color, surface detail, pigmentation, and spatial arrangement of features #Bruce Humphreys, 1994#. Within this framework, faces are typically recognized at a very subordinate level #the exemplar level, e.g. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. M. #1984#. Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.

....through experience. In the remainder of this chapter, we first discuss basic levels as studied in cognitive psychology. and present the similarities we found between basic levels in conceptual knowledge and Osgood s naturalness. We then discuss the findings of the experiments of Jolicoeur et al. [29], which demonstrate exceptions to the rule of basic levels. Jolicoeur et al. introduce the notion of entry level, by which some specific instances of certain categories are referred to at a level other than the basic level. For example, when pointing a particular robin, or some other generic ....

....it in detail with an example. CHAPTER 6. ENTRY LEVEL EFFECTS IN NAMING OBJECTS 111 6.1 Basic Levels in Human Categorization We present an overview of basic levels in taxonomic knowledge. The discussions in this section are based on the characterization of basic levels in [65] 45] and [29]. Among all the levels of abstraction at which concrete objects are classified, there exists a basic level which is psychologically optimal, or natural. The basis for categorizing objects is the distribution of properties among objects. These properties can be perceptual as well as functional ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Jolicoeur, M. Gluck, and S. Kosslyn. Pictures and Names: Making the Connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16:243--275, 1984.

....with distinct shape are easiest and fastest recognized whether of a basic level or not. For instance a penguin, i.e. an atypical exemplar the basic level category birds, is most likely to be first recognized as penguin rather than as a bird , a classification termed entry level recognition (Jolicoeur et al. 1984). Penguins do indeed have a distinct shape when compared with most other animals, but also differ a great deal from any other bird. Conceptual hierarchies like those mentioned above reflect certain types of interactions between the human perceiver and objects in the environment. As such they also ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. (1984). Pictures and Names: Making the Connection. Cogn Psychol, 16, 243--275.

....(and not that of object category, which has been examined in many prior studies) we explicitly manipulated this factor. Level of categorization. Although most objects are recognized first and most efficiently at what has been called a basic level of abstraction (bird, chair, or dog) (Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984; Rosch, 1978; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, BoyesBraem, 1976; Tanaka Taylor, 1991) all objects can be recognized at several different levels, including more subordinate levels ( hound dog, beagle, and Snoopy are all subordinate relative to, or more specific than, the basic level ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243275.

.... basic level, superordinate categories, are more general, while those below the basic level, subordinate categories, are more specific, sharing a great number of attributes with other subordinate categories, and having to a large extent similar shape (for a thorough discussion of categories see [8,24,25]) Representations of objects at different taxonomic levels may differ in their attributes, the nature of primitives describing various attributes, and the reference frame used for the description of the object. In primate vision, shape seems to be the critical attribute for object recognition. ....

P. Jolicoeur, M.A. Gluck, and S.M. Kosslyn. Pictures and Names: Making the Connection . Cognitive Psychology, 16:243-275 1984.

....of the shape variables. These, in turn, determine the geometry of the object, e.g. the locations of the vertices of a triangular mesh that approximates the object s shape. Finally, intrinsic and extrinsic factors (geometry and viewing conditions) together determine the appearance of the object. (Jolicoeur et al. 1984) names of objects correspond to categories rather to individuals, and it is the category of the object that the visual system is required to determine. Thus, the observer is confronted with potential variation in the intrinsic shape of an object, because objects called by the same name do not, ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., and Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16:243--275.

....geometry of the object, e.g. the locations of the vertices of a triangular mesh that approximates the object s shape. Finally, intrinsic and extrinsic factors (geometry and viewing conditions) together determine the appearance of the object. important) cases such as face recognition, entry level (Jolicoeur et al. 1984) names of objects correspond to categories rather to individuals, and it is the category of the object that the visual system is required to determine. Thus, the observer is confronted with potential variation in the intrinsic shape of an object, because objects called by the same name do not, ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., and Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16:243--275.

....As a result, the hierarchies constructed by COBWEB account for prototypicality effects and basic level phenomena 1 In practice, the antecedent of who sometimes fills semantic roles other than the actor. 2 The COBWEB3 system was provided by the kind folks at NASA, Ames. observed in humans ([Jolicoeur, Gluck, Kosslyn, 1984], Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, Boyes Braem, 1976] Rosch, et al. 1976] COBWEB takes as input a set of training instances described as a list of attribute value pairs. Because the antecedent of a relative pronoun usually appears as one or more phrases in the clause preceding who, the ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. (1984). Pictures and Names: Making the Connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.

....the validity of this view of representation. In a normal categorization situation (Rosch, 1978; Smith, 1990) human observers are expected to ignore much of the shape details (Price and Humphreys, 1989) Barring special (albeit behaviorally important) cases such as face recognition, entry level (Jolicoeur et al. 1984) names of objects correspond to categories rather to individuals, and it is the category of the object that the visual system is required to determine. Thus, the observer is confronted with potential variation in the intrinsic shape of an object, because objects called by the same name do not, ....

Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., and Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: making the connection.

No context found.

Jolicoeur, P. et al. (1984) Pictures and names: making the connection. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 243 -- 275

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC