Computational approaches to the development of perceptual expertise

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 8, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 378-386

  Palmeri, Thomas J ^a   Wong, Alan C N ^a   Gauthier, Isabel ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LIVING SYSTEMS STUDIES; RADIOLOGY;

DOG EXPERTS; ORNITHOLOGY;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

ALGORITHM; ATTENTION; AUTOANALYSIS; BEHAVIOR; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTUITION; LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEMORY; NEUROIMAGING; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ATTENTION; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; COGNITION; HUMANS; LEARNING; MEMORY; PERCEPTION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 4143105851     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.06.001     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. Gauthier I., Tarr M.J. Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging Brain activity and behavior. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28:2002;431-446
2. Tanaka J.W., Curran T. A neural basis for expert object recognition. Psychol. Sci. 12:2001;43-47
3. Tanaka, J.W. et al. The training and transfer of real-world, perceptual expertise. Psychol. Sci. (in press).
4. Tanaka, J.W. (in press) Object categorization, expertise and neural plasticity. In The New Cognitive Neurosciences (3rd edn) (Gazzaniga, M., ed.), MIT Press.
5. Diamond R., Carey S. Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115:1986;107-117
6. Grelotti D., et al. Social interest and the development of cortical face specialization: what autism teaches us about face processing. Dev. Psychobiol. 40:2002;213-225
7. McCandliss B.D., et al. The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:2003;293-299
8. Palmeri T.J., Gauthier I. Visual object understanding. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5:2004;291-303
9. Goldstone R.L. Perceptual learning. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:1998;585-612
10. Schyns P.G., et al. The development of features in object concepts. Behav. Brain Sci. 21:1998;1-54
11. Barsalou L.W., et al. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:2003;84-91
12. Jennings C., Aamodt S. Computational approaches to brain function. Nat. Neurosci. 3:(Suppl):2000;1160
13. Kim N.S., Ahn W.-K. Clinical psychologists' theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 131:2002;451-476
14. Tanaka J.W., Taylor M. Object categories and expertise: is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cogn. Psychol. 23:1991;457-482
15. Johansen M.K., Palmeri T.J. Are there representational shifts during category learning? Cogn. Psychol. 45:2002;482-553
16. Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P.S. (1981) Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Cognitive skills and their acquisition (Anderson, J.R., eds), pp. 1-55, Erlbaum.
17. Heathcote A., et al. The power law repealed: the case for an exponential law of practice. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 7:2000;185-207
18. Rickard T.C. Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: an item-level test of candidate models. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 30:2004;65-82
19. Gauthier I., Tarr M.J. Becoming a 'Greeble' expert: exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vis. Res. 37:1997;1673-1681
20. Gauthier, I. et al. (1998) Training 'Greeble' experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vis. Res. (Special issue 'Models of Recognition'). 38, 2401-2428.
21. Jolicoeur P., et al. Pictures and names: making the connection. Cogn. Psychol. 16:1984;243-275
22. Tanaka J.W. The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130:2001;534-543
23. Young A.W., et al. Configural information in face perception. Perception. 10:1987;747-759
24. Gauthier I., et al. Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. Nat. Neurosci. 6:2003;428-432
25. Goldstone, R.L. (2003) Learning to perceive while perceiving to learn. In Perceptual Organization in Vision: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives (Kimchi, R. et al., eds), pp. 233-278, Erlbaum.
26. Sowden P.T., et al. Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: a functional role for improvements in adults' visual sensitivity? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26:2000;379-390
27. LeGrand R., et al. Early visual experience and face processing. Nature. 410:2001;890
28. Mondloch C.J., et al. Developmental changes in face processing skills. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 86:2003;67-84
29. Tarr M.J., Gauthier I. FFA: a flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise. Nat. Neurosci. 3:2000;764-769
30. Palmeri T.J. Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 23:1997;324-354
31. Gauthier I., et al. Can face recognition really be dissociated from object recognition? J. Cogn. Neurosci. 11:1999;349-370
32. Logothetis N.K., Pauls J. Psychophysical and physiological evidence for viewer-centered object representations in the primate. Cereb. Cortex. 5:1995;270-288
33. Gauthier I., et al. Activation of the middle fusiform 'face area' increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nat. Neurosci. 2:1999;568-573
34. Haxby J.V., et al. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science. 293:2001;2425-2430
35. Nosofsky R.M. Attention, similarity, and the identification- categorization relationship. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115:1986;39-57
36. Riesenhuber M., Poggio T. Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2:1999;1019-1025
37. Tarr M.J., Yi D.C. Learning to see faces and objects. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:2003;23-30
38. Ashby, F.G. (1992) Multidimensional models of perception and cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
39. Hummel J.E., Biederman I. Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychol. Rev. 99:1992;480-517
40. Edelman, S. (1999) Representation and recognition in vision, MIT Press.
41. Poggio T., Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature. 343:1990;263-266
42. Ullman S., et al. Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nat. Neurosci. 5:2002;682-687
43. Bülthoff H.H., Edelman S. Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89:1992;60-64
44. Tarr M.J., et al. Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nat. Neurosci. 1:1998;275-277
45. Kruschke J.K. ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychol. Rev. 99:1992;22-44
46. Nosofsky R.M., Palmeri T.J. An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychol. Rev. 104:1997;266-300
47. Erickson M.A., Kruschke J.K. Rule-based extrapolation in perceptual categorization. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9:2002;160-168
48. Nosofsky R.M., Palmeri T.J. A rule-plus-exception model for classifying objects in continuous-dimension spaces. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5:1998;345-369
49. Ashby F.G., et al. A formal neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychol. Rev. 105:1998;442-481
50. Ashby F.G., Waldron E.M. On the nature of implicit categorization. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6:1999;363-378
51. Logan G.D. An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychol. Rev. 109:2002;376-400
52. Logan G.D. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychol. Rev. 95:1988;492-527
53. Rosseel Y. Mixture models of categorization. J. Math. Psychol. 46:2002;178-210
54. Sigala N., Logothetis N.K. Visual categorization shapes feature selectivity in the primate temporal cortex. Nature. 415:2002;318-320
55. Nosofsky, R.M. (1998) Optimal performance and exemplar models of classification. In Rational models of cognition (Oaksford, M. and Chater, N., eds), Oxford University Press.
56. Usher M., McClelland J.L. On the time course of perceptual choice: the leaky competing accumulator model. Psychol. Rev. 108:2001;550-592
57. Lamberts K. Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization. Psychol. Rev. 107:2000;227-260
58. Nosofsky R.M., Alfonso-Reese L.A. Effects of similarity and practice on speeded classification response times and accuracies: further tests of an exemplar-retrieval model. Mem. Cogn. 27:1999;78-93
59. Nosofsky R.M. Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13:1987;87-108
60. Maddox W.T. Learning and attention in multidimensional identification and categorization: separating low-level perceptual processes and high-level decisional processes. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28:2002;99-115
61. Dosher B.A., Lu Z.L. Mechanisms of perceptual learning. Vis. Res. 39:1999;3197-3221
62. Shepard R.N. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science. 237:1987;1317-1323
63. Ennis D.M. Toward a universal law of generalization. Science. 242:1988;944
64. Livingston K.R., et al. Categorical perception effects induced by category learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 24:1998;732-753
65. Diehl R.L., et al. Speech perception. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55:2004;149-179
66. Goldstone R.L., et al. Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition. 78:2001;27-43
67. Nosofsky R.M., et al. Comparing models of rule-based classification learning: a replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Mem. Cogn. 22:1994;352-369
68. Goldstone R.L., Steyvers M. The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130:2001;116-139
69. Gauthier I., Palmeri T.J. Visual neurons: categorization-based selectivity. Curr. Biol. 12:2002;R282-R284
70. Op de Beeck H., et al. The effect of category learning on the representation of shape: dimensions can be biased, but not differentiated. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132:2003;491-511
71. Donnelly N., Davidoff J. The mental representations of faces and houses: Issues concerning parts and wholes. Vis. Cogn. 6:1999;319-343
72. Farah M.J., et al. What is 'special' about face perception? Psychol. Rev. 105:1998;482-498
73. Shiffrin, R.M. and Lightfoot, N. (1997) Perceptual learning of alphanumberic-like characters. In Perceptual Learning: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 36) (Goldstone, R.L., ed.), pp. 45-81, Academic Press.
74. Goldstone R.L. Unitization during category learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26:2000;86-112
75. Wenger M.J., Ingvalson E.M. Preserving informational separability and violating decisional separability in facial perception and recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 29:2003;1106-1118
76. Keri S. The cognitive neuroscience of category learning. Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev. 43:2003;85-109
77. Smith P.L., Ratcliff R. Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends Neurosci. 27:2004;161-168
78. Medin D.L., et al. Categorization and reasoning in relation to culture and expertise. Ross B.H. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 41:2002;1-41 Academic Press
79. Gauthier I., et al. The fusiform 'face area' is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12:2000;495-504
80. Grill-Spector, K. and Kanwisher, N. Visual recognition: as soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychol. Sci. (in press).