How perceived distractor distance influences reference production: Effects of perceptual grouping in 2D and 3D scenes

Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 2507-2512

  Koolen, Ruud ^a   Houben, Eugène ^a   Huntjens, Jan ^a   Krahmer, Emiel ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

2D and 3D scene processing; artificial agents; overspecification; perceptual grouping; Reference production

Indexed keywords

COLOR;

2D AND 3D SCENE PROCESSING; 3D SCENES; ARTIFICIAL AGENTS; COLOR ATTRIBUTES; OVERSPECIFICATION; PERCEPTUAL GROUPING; PRESENTATION MODES; REFERENCE PRODUCTION; SCENE PROCESSING; VISUAL SCENE;

THREE DIMENSIONAL COMPUTER GRAPHICS;

EID: 84988561086     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Beun, R.J., & Cremers, A. (1998). Object reference in a shared domain of conversations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6 (1/2), 121-152.
2. Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: when does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition, 36 (6), 1047-1056.
3. Clarke, A., Elsner, M., & Rohde, H. (2013). Where's Wally: the influence of visual salience on referring expression generation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, article 329.
4. Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational interpretations of the Gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18, 233-263.
5. Granrud, C., Yonas, A., & Pettersen, L. (1984). A comparison of monocular and binocular depth perception in 5- and 7-year-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38 (1), 19-32.
6. Koolen, R., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2013a). The effect of scene variation on the redundant use of color. Cognitive Science, 37 (2), 395-411.
7. th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), 817-822. Berlin, Germany.
8. Koolen, R., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (submitted). How distractor objects trigger referential overspecification: testing the effects of visual clutter and distance.
9. Krahmer, E., & Theune, M. (2002). Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions. In: K. van Deemter, & R. Kibble (Eds.). Information sharing: givenness and newness in language processing (pp. 223-264). CSLI Publications, Stanford.
10. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. MIT Press, Cambridge/London.
11. Loomis, J. (2001). Looking down is looking up. Nature, 414 (6860), 155-156.
12. Palmer, S. (1992). Common region: a new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive Psychology, 24 (3), 436-447.
13. Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27, 89-110.
14. rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 1571-1576. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
15. Seuntiëns, P., Heynderickx, I., IJsselstein, W., Avoort, P., Berentsen, J., Dalm, I., …, Oosting, W. (2005). Viewing experience and naturalness of 3D images. In Optics East, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
16. th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), 876-881. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
17. Van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., Van Gompel, R., & Krahmer, E. (2012). Toward a computational psycholinguistics of reference production. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 166-183.
18. Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301-350.