2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.09.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Color makes a difference: Two-dimensional object naming in literate and illiterate subjects

Abstract: Previous work has shown that illiterate subjects are better at naming two-dimensional representations of real objects when presented as colored photos as compared to black and white drawings. This raises the question if color or textural details selectively improve object recognition and naming in illiterate compared to literate subjects. In this study, we investigated whether the surface texture and/or color of objects is used to access stored object knowledge in illiterate subjects. A group of illiterate sub… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
56
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast to illiterate subjects, our dyslexic study population has at least theoretically practiced as much as normal readers on coding and decoding two-dimensional representations in terms of figurative and symbolic representations of objects, and thus it seems less likely that our results can be explained by an analogy with illiterate subjects. Note that in this case, dyslexics should have been different from normal readers on B&W drawings, as was the case for the illiterate and literate subjects studied by Reis, Faísca, Ingvar, and Petersson (2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In contrast to illiterate subjects, our dyslexic study population has at least theoretically practiced as much as normal readers on coding and decoding two-dimensional representations in terms of figurative and symbolic representations of objects, and thus it seems less likely that our results can be explained by an analogy with illiterate subjects. Note that in this case, dyslexics should have been different from normal readers on B&W drawings, as was the case for the illiterate and literate subjects studied by Reis, Faísca, Ingvar, and Petersson (2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In part B, the subgroup 66-80/AES showed longer times than the 66-80/HES in all trials (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). The subgroup 66-80/AES showed longer times than the 50-65/AES in all trials (1-12) (p < 0.01 for all comparisons).…”
Section: Age and Education Differencesmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The initial pool of stimuli consisted of 220 photos of common objects. Some were selected from the Focus Multimedia CD Photo Library, some from the set of Reis and colleagues (Reis, Faísca, Ingvar, & Petersson, 2006), and some via an Internet image search using the Google search engine. An independent group of 30 participants named and rated the initial set of objects according to prototypicality, familiarity, visual ambiguity, visual complexity, and color diagnosticity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%