The advantage of real objects over matched pictures in infants' processing of the familiar size of objects

Abstract

We investigate when infants exhibit knowledge of the familiar size of well‐known objects and whether this knowledge is affected by stimulus format, that is, whether the stimuli are presented as real objects or matched pictures. Infants (130 7‐ and 12‐month‐olds) saw everyday objects such as sippy cups and pacifiers in their familiar size and novel sizes (larger or smaller than the familiar size) placed pairwise within infants' reach. We used a preferential‐looking paradigm to investigate whether infants are able to discriminate familiar from novel sizes. Although, infants of both age groups looked longer toward real objects that were smaller or larger than the familiar size, there were no looking preferences for the pictures. These results suggest that although 7‐ and 12‐month‐olds demonstrate familiar size knowledge for real objects, this understanding does not generalize to pictorial representations of those objects.

Graspability Modulates the Stronger Neural Signature of Motor Preparation for Real Objects vs. Pictures

“…Importantly, whether patients with agnosia show a real object advantage in recognition depends on the physical size of the stimulus (Holler et al, 2019); recognition is best when the object's physical size matches the typical realworld size, whereas performance is impaired (and similar to pictures) when physical size is larger or smaller than the real-world size. Analogous effects of familiar size and display format are evident in looking behavior in infants (Sensoy et al, 2021). In nonhuman primates, size coding of solid objects has been observed in neural population in the dorsal cortex (Murata et al, 2000;Sakata et al, 1995;Taira, Mine, Georgopoulos, Murata, & Sakata, 1990).…”

“…Emerging evidence from these studies suggests that real objects are processed differently than their picture proxies, and these differences are evident across a range of cognitive domains. For example, compared to pictures, real objects have been shown to bias perception (Holler, Fabbri, & Snow, 2020;Romero, Compton, Yang, & Snow, 2018), capture attention (Gomez, Skiba, & Snow, 2018), bolster memory (Snow, Skiba, Coleman, & Berryhill, 2014), alter gaze patterns in infants (Sensoy, Culham, & Schwarzer, 2021), facilitate recognition in neuropsychological patients (Holler, Behrmann, & Snow, 2019;Farah, 2004;Turnbull, Driver, & McCarthy, 2004;Chainay & Humphreys, 2001;Riddoch & Humphreys, 1987;Ratcliff & Newcombe, 1982), and modulate higherlevel cognitive processes such as valuation (Romero et al, 2018;Bushong, King, Camerer, & Rangel, 2010), social cognition (Risko, Laidlaw, Freeth, Foulsham, & Kingstone, 2012;Kingstone, 2009), and executive function (Beaucage, Skolney, Hewes, & Vongpaisal, 2020).…”

“…Although infants at 9 months old often try to grasp pictures of toys off the page (DeLoache, Pierroutsakos, Uttal, Rosengren, & Gottlieb, 1998), more realistic pictures tend to elicit more attempts at interaction than do less realistic pictures (Pierroutsakos & DeLoache, 2003), and as infants gain experience with pictures, they become less inclined to grasp depicted objects and more inclined to make communicative gestures, like pointing actions, toward them (Pierroutsakos & Troseth, 2003). Thus, sensorimotor interaction with real objects helps infants to learn and understand the differences between real objects and pictures, despite resemblances in their appearance (Gerhard et al, 2021;Sensoy et al, 2021;Adolph, Eppler, & Gibson, 1993;Gibson, 1988).…”

Human memory for real-world solid objects is not predicted by responses to image displays.

“…Studies that have directly compared responses to real versus artificial stimuli have found that relatively subtle changes in the physical size of familiar graspable real-world solid objects (e.g., an apple that is shown 50% larger or 50% smaller than its typical real-world size) have striking influence on whether patients with visual agnosia can identify (name) the object, whereas analogous changes in the size of 2-D or 3-D images of the same objects, or of basic shapes that have no real-world size associations, have no influence on object identification in these patients (Holler et al, 2019). Similarly, the real-world size of real object toys, but not the size of matched 2-D images of those toys, influences looking preferences in healthy human infants (Sensoy et al, 2021). Future studies will shed light on the conditions under which real-world size and distance information might be automatically derived from objects depicted as images.…”

“…Although artificial stimuli such as pictures are used widely as proxies for real-world solid objects, recent evidence suggests that there are differences in how observers respond to the different stimulus types. Experiments that have specifically tested the effect of physical realism show that it can amplify behavioral effects (Bushong et al, 2010; Chainay & Humphreys, 2001; Gerhard et al, 2016; Gomez et al, 2018; Holler et al, 2019; Romero et al, 2017; Sensoy et al, 2021), and brain responses (Freud et al, 2017; Marini et al, 2019), thereby increasing the likelihood of uncovering effects that might otherwise be missed by relying on artificial stimuli. Quantitative benefits of realism have been reported across cognitive domains including perception, recognition, attention, memory, valuation, and decision-making, as well as in the developing brain.…”