Object recognition as a function of stimulus characteristics

Barnard, William A.; Breeding, Marshall; Cross, Henry A.

doi:10.3758/bf03333748

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…g the homogen eou s slides are accen tuated and po stexp en men t discussions with subjects co nfirmed this . Barnard, Breeding, and Cross (1984) have recen tly observ~d that the reco gnition of objects (shown directly rather than.pICtorially) and the decline of reco gnition for these same objects over a l-w eek retention interval are partially dep endent upon specific object characteristics as revealed by cluster an~lysis ?f rated stimulus dimensions. The present results provide still ano ther factor, the homogeneous or het ero gen eous nature of the context in which complex homogeneous pictures are originall y viewed whi ch influences subsequent recognition performance.…”

Section: Discussion Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some factors involved in complex-picture recognition

Kiphart

Sjogren

Cross

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College students were assigned to factorial combinations of picture context (homogeneous, heterogeneous) and picture color (color, black and white). Subjects were then given homogeneous slides in a picture-recognition test using two distractor types. One distractor type included stimuli not previously shown to the subjects; the other type involved previous stimuli in a different (mirror-image)orientation. Each group was shown 240 pictorial stimuli and was then tested with 48. Results revealed that picture recognition was not influenced by picture color. However, the results indicated a significant interaction between picture context and distractor type, with performance being significantly influenced only by the homogeneous context with new distractors. Results were discussed in terms of the importance of the initial viewing context.The processes and parameters of human recognition memory have been extensively studied (e.g., Kausler, 1974 ;Murdock , 1982). Picture recognition involves memory for concrete stimuli such as wilderness scenes, faces, and many other pictorial categories. In a recognition study involving 10,000 heterogeneous photographs, Standing (1973) found high recognition. By extrapolating his results, he conjectured that this memory was for all practical purposes limitless and that if he had employed one million items under the same conditions , his subjects could have recognized approximately 731,400. Other researchers have found a similar capacity. Shepard (1967) presented 600 picture stimuli , and subjects attained recognition rates as high as 98% in a two-choice testing procedure. Standing, Conezio, and Haber (1970) provided single presentations of up to 2,568 photographic stimuli and observed approximately 90% correct recognition.Not all researchers have encountered this remarkable picture memory capacity. Howe (1967) examined recognition memory for pictorial stimuli presented in homogeneous sets, such as dogs, ships, birds, and trains. The recognition rates for subjects in this study were approximately 72%, which were lower than the rates for heterogeneous stimuli. Goldstein and Chance (1970) utilized a range of complex stimuli and found an inverse relationship between stimulus complexity and recognition performance. The complex homogeneous sets used were pictures of faces, ink blots, and snow crystals. Faces, which were lesscomplex and more familiar, yielded the highest recognition, followed , in descending order, by ink blots and snow crystals, 78%, 54%, and 39%, reRequests for reprints should be addressed to : Henry A. Cross, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Colorado 80523 .spectively. Even though the recognition rates were lower for such complex stimuli , it is apparent that subjects still make reliable recognitions of the stimuli. The lower rates may have been attributable, at least in part, to the homogeneous quality of the stimuli and not simply to their judged complexity.The purpose of this study was to examine recognition sensitivities for complex h...

show abstract

Section: Discussion Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some factors involved in complex-picture recognition

Kiphart

Sjogren

Cross

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The order of mapping condition was counterbalanced across groups. Evidence of retention and the effects of prior learning were assessed by repeating the test 1 week later (Barnard, Breeding, & Cross, 1984). The duration of each session was 30 minutes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracting Meaning from Sound: Nomic Mappings, Everyday Listening, and Perceiving Object Size from Frequency

Coward

Stevens

2004

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In developing a theoretical framework for the field of ecological acoustics, Gaver (1993b) distinguished between the experience of musical listening (perceiving sounds) and everyday listening (perceiving sources of sounds). Within the everyday listening experience, Gaver (1993a) proposed that the frequency of an object results from, and therefore specifies, the size of that object. The relation in which frequency and object size stand to one another is an example of a nomic mapping. A symbolic mapping involves the pairing of unrelated dimensions and, relative to a nomic mapping, requires an additional step in recognition and learning. Using a perceptual identification task, an experiment investigated the hypothesis that nomic mappings are identified more easily than symbolic mappings. It was predicted that the advantage manifests only during the everyday listening experience, and that the initially superior recognition of nomic mappings is equaled by symbolic mappings after extended exposure. The results provided support for the hypotheses. Theoretical implications of the differential recognition of nomic and symbolic mappings are discussed, together with practical applications of nomic relations.While speech and music perception have received considerable attention in experimental psychology (Deutsch, 1999;Jusczyk, 1997), relatively little is known about the way in which humans perceive other environmental sounds. Recent research in ecological acoustics has focused on the way in which a sound may contain meaningful information for the listener (e.g

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the finding (Barnard et al, 1984) that the judged characteristics of objects may influence how they are subsequently recognized, in a way different from words, should provide a caution against the acceptance of picture recognition as simply as extension of the principles of verbal recognition memory. Horton and Mills (1984), in their review, maintained that the current evidence is that pictures and words are dealt with differently in memory even though this fact may not preclude a single memory system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…A recent study by Barnard, Breeding, and Cross (1984) supported the Goldstein and Chance (1974) admonition that the nature of the stimuli be considered. Barnard et al found that the informational characteristics of exhibited objects, as revealed by cluster analysis, were important determiners of how such objects were later recognized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition of homogeneous and heterogeneous pictures as a function of viewing context

Kiphart

Sjogren

Loomis

et al. 1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although recognition memory for pictorial stimuli has been explored using either homogeneous or heterogeneous picture sets, apparently no single study has combined these stimuli and subsequently tested recognition for both types of stimuli. Subjects in two experiments were administered one ofthree picture sets of 100 slides. Each set consisted of homogeneous and heterogeneous slides that differed only in the ratio of homogeneous to heterogeneous stimuli: 80:20, 50:50, or 20:80. A subject's recognition memory was then examined for both types of slides. Overall recognition was high for the heterogeneous stimuli but low for the homogeneous test slides. In a signal detection analysis, the picture set involving the largest proportion of heterogeneous stimuli, 20:80, yielded the lowest recognition sensitivity to the heterogeneous stimuli. This interaction of viewing-set composition and type of test stimuli was discussed in relation to picture recognition memory research employing either homogeneous or heterogeneous stimuli.Since the study by Shepard (1967), it has been fashionable to think of picture memory as a superior memory, and a number of investigators (Shepard, 1967;Standing, Conezio, & Haber, 1970;Standing, 1973) have, indeed, reported recognition rates that stand in contrast to those reported for nonmeaningful materials, such as digits and the traditional nonsense syllables. However, the pictorial stimuli employed in these studies have almost always been exceedingly diverse (heterogeneous) and drawn from collections of magazine photographs that varied greatly in context and subject matter.Goldstein and Chance (1974) argued that it is important that the nature of the pictorial stimuli be carefully described, and some investigators have utilized materials more homogeneous in nature. Howe (1967) examined recognition memory for homogeneous sets of pictures of, for example, dogs, ships, reptiles, birds, and trains and found an overall recognition rate of approximately 72 %, which is considerably below that reported for heterogeneous pictures. Goldstein and Chance (1970) also grouped stimuli into homogeneous sets of pictures of, for example, human faces, ink blots, and snow crystals. Faces exhibited the highest recognition (78%); ink blots and snow crystals, however, showed only 54% and 39% recognition rates, respectively.A recent study by Barnard, Breeding, and Cross (1984) supported the Goldstein and Chance (1974) admonition that the nature of the stimuli be considered. Barnard et al. found that the informational characteristics of exhibited objects, as revealed by cluster analysis, were important determiners of how such objects were later recognized. Overall object recognition was relatively high, but it was shown that objects low in "familiarity" did not receiveRequests for reprints should be addressed to Henry A. Cross, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO 80523. 109the disproportionate boost in recognition after a single exposure that is characteristic of unfamiliar words.The...

show abstract

Object recognition as a function of stimulus characteristics

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Some factors involved in complex-picture recognition

Some factors involved in complex-picture recognition

Extracting Meaning from Sound: Nomic Mappings, Everyday Listening, and Perceiving Object Size from Frequency

Recognition of homogeneous and heterogeneous pictures as a function of viewing context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About