Hierarchical attention in discriminating objects at different levels of specificity

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 845-860

  Large, Mary Ellen ^a,b   McMullen, Patricia A ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845334201     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193706     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. ARCHAMBAULT, A., GOSSELIN, F., & SCHYNS, P. G. (2000). A natural bias for the basic level? In L. R. Gleitman & A. K, Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 60-65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
3. BIEDERMAN, I. (1995). Visual object recognition. In S. M. Kosslyn & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), Visual cognition: An Invitation to cognitive science (2nd ed., pp. 121-165). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. BIEDERMAN, I., & COOPER, E. E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
5. BIEDERMAN, I., SUBRAMANIAM, S., BAR, M., KALOCSAI, P., & FISER, J. (1999). Subordinate-level object classification reexamined. Psychological Research, 62, 131-153.
6. BIEDERMAN, L, SUBRAMANIAM, S., KALOCSAI, P., & BAR, M. (1999). Viewpoint-invariant information in subordinate-level object classification. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 91-111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. BOUCART, M., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1992). Global shape cannot be attended without object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 785-806.
8. BOUCART, M., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & LORENCEAU, J. (1995). Automatic access to object identity: Attention to global information, not to particular physical dimensions, is important. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 584-601.
9. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
10. COLLIN, C. A., & McMULLEN, P. A. (2005). Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 354-364.
11. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 3, 433-458.
12. EDELMAN, S., & DUVDEVANI-BAR, S. (1997). A model of visual recognition and categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 352, 1191-1202.
13. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2003). Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-109.
14. FILOTEO, J. V., FRIEDRICH, F. J., & STRICKER, J. L. (2001). Shifting attention to different levels within global-local stimuli: A study of normal participants and a patient with temporal-parietal lobe damage. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 227-261.
15. FISER, J., SUBRAMANIAM, S., & BIEDERMAN, I. (2001). Size tuning in the absence of spatial frequency tuning in object recognition. Vision Research, 41, 1931-1950.
16. HAN, S., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2002). Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 5-21.
17. HAN, S., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & CHEN, L. (1999a). Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1411-1432.
18. HAN, S., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & CHEN, L. (1999b). Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 661-674.
19. HOFFMAN, D. D., & RICHARDS, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
20. HUFFMAN, D. D., & SINGH, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
21. HUBNER, R. (2000). Attention shining between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects. Visual Cognition, 7, 465-484.
22. HUMMEL, J. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 157-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & BOUCART, M. (1997). Selection by color and form in vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 136-153.
24. JOLICŒUR, P., GLUCK, M. A., & KOSSLYN, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.
25. KIM, N., IVRY, R. B., & ROBERTSON, L. C. (1999). Sequential priming in hierarchically organized figures: Effects of target level and target resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 715-729.
26. KIMCHI, R. (1998). Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1105-1118.
27. KIMCHI, R. (2000). Perceptual organization of visual objects: A microgenetic analysis. Vision Research, 40, 1333-1347.
28. LAMB, M. R., & ROBERTSON, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchi-cal stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty, and stimu-lus identity. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 172-181.
29. LAMB, M. R., & YUND, E. W. (1996). Spatial frequency and attention: Effects of level-, target-, and location-repetition on the processing of global and local forms. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 363-373.
30. LAMB, M. R., & YUND, E. W. (2000). The role of spatial frequency in cued shifts of attention between global and local forms. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 753-761.
31. LLOYD-JONES, T. J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1997a). Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming. Memory & Cognition, 25, 606-624.
32. LLOYD-JONES, T. J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1997b). Perceptual differentiation as a source of category effects m object processing: Evidence from naming and object decisions. Memory & Cognition, 25, 18-35.
33. LOFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
34. MACINNES, J. (2000). Experiment presentation software [Computer program]. Halifax: Dalhousie University. Available at www.cs.dal .ca/-macinnwj.
35. MARR, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
36. MORRISON, D. J., & SCHYNS, P. G. (2001). Usage of spatial scales for the categorization of faces, objects, and scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 454-469.
37. MURPHY, G. L., & BROWNELL, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 70-84.
38. MURPHY, G. L., & LASSALINE, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories (pp. 93-131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. MURRAY, J. E., & JONES, C. (2002). Attention to local form information can prevent access to semantic information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 609-625.
40. NAVON, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
41. NAVON, D. (2003). What does a compound letter tell the psychologist's mind? Acta Psychologica, 114, 273-309.
42. OLIVA, A., & SCHYNS, P. G. (1997). Coarse blobs or fine edges? Evidence that information diagnosticity changes the perception of complex visual stimuli. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 72-107.
43. ROBERTSON, L. C. (1996). Attentional persistence for features of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 227-249.
44. ROBERTSON, L. C., EGLY, R., LAMB, M. R., & KERTH, L. (1993). Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 471-487.
45. ROBERTSON, L. C., & IVRY, R. [B.] (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries: Attention to visual and auditory primitives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 59-63.
46. ROSCH, E., MERVIS, C. B., GRAY, W. D., JOHNSON, D. M., & BOYESBRAEM, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
47. SCHYNS, P. G. (1998). Diagnostic recognition: Task constraints, object information and their interactions. Cognition, 67, 147-179.
48. SCHYNS, P. G., & OLIVA, A. (1999). Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception effaces in rapid visual presentations. Cognition, 69, 243-265.
49. SNODGRASS, J. G., & McCULLOUGH, B. (1986). The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 147-154.
50. SNODGRASS, J. G., & VANDERWART, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215.
51. TARR, M. J., & BULTHOFF, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
52. TARR, M. J., & KRIEGMAN, D. J. (2001). What defines a view? Vision Research, 41, 1981-2004.
53. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
54. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
55. TVERSKY, B., & HEMENWAY, K. (1984). Objects, parts and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169-193.
56. VAN SELST, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
57. VECERA, S. P. (1998). Visual object representation: An introduction. Psychobiology, 26, 281-308.
58. WARD, L. (1982). Determinants to attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 562-581.