Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 107, Issue 33, 2010, Pages 14552-14555

  Park, Junghyun ^a,b   Shimojo, Eiko ^a,b   Shimojo, Shinsuke ^a,b  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DRAWING; FACE; FEMALE; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT MANIPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPATIAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL FIELD; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; INFANT; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION; VISION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; JUDGMENT; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77957057045     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1004374107     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Fantz RL (1963) Pattern vision in newborn infants. Science 140:296-297.
2. Langrois JH, Roggman LA (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1: 115-121.
3. Rhodes G, Jeffery L, Watson TL, Clifford CWG, Nakayama K (2003) Fitting the mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness after effects. Psychol Sci 14:558-566. (Pubitemid 37550857)
4. Fantz RL (1964) Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones. Science 146:668-670.
5. Berlyne DE (1970) Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Percept Psychophys 8: 279-286.
6. Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol Monogr Suppl 9:1-27.
7. Bornstein RF (1989) Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research. Psychol Bull 106:265-289.
8. Fang X, Singh S, Ahluwalia R (2007) An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. J Consum Res 34:97-103.
9. Hunter MA, Ames EW, Koopman R (1983) Effectsof stimulus complexity and familiarization time on infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. Dev Psychol 19:338-352.
10. Wetherford MJ, Cohen LB (1973) Developmental changes in infant visual preferences for novelty and familiarity. Child Dev 44:416-424.
11. Richmond J, Colombo M, Hayne H (2007) Interpreting visual preferences in the visual paired-comparison task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 33:823-831.
12. Seamon JG, et al. (1995) The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:711-721.
13. Karmel BZ (1969) The effect of age, complexity, and amount of contour on pattern preferences in human infants. J Exp Child Psychol 7:339-354.
14. Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C (1996) Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381:520-522.
15. Barlow HB (1961) Sensory Communication, ed Rosenbluth WA (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 217-234.
16. Barlow HB (1989) Unsupervised learning. Neural Comput 1:295-311.
17. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun MM (1997) The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci 17:4302-4311.