Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming

Abstract

Four experiments are reported examining the locus of structural similarity effects in picture recognition and naming with normal subjects. Subjects carried out superordinate categorization and naming tasks with picture and word forms of clothing, furniture, fruit, and vegetable exemplars. The main findings were as follows: (1) Responses to pictures of fruit and vegetables ("structurally similar" objects) were slowed relative to pictures of clothing and furniture ("structurally dissimilar" objects). This structural similarity difference was greater for picture naming than for superordinate categorization of pictures. (2) Structural similarity effects in picture naming were reduced by repetition priming. Repetition priming effects were equivalent from picture and word naming as prime tasks. (3) However, superordinate categorization of the prime did not produce the structural similarity effects on priming found for picture naming. Furthermore, such priming effects did not arise for picture or word categorization or for reading picture names as target tasks. It is proposed that structural similarity effects on priming object processing are located in processes mapping semantic representations of pictures to name representations required to select names for objects. Visually based competition between fruit and vegetables produces competition in name selection, which is reduced by priming the mappings between semantic and name representations.Most current models propose that object naming may be decomposed into a series of processing stages, involving access to and retrieval of different kinds of stored information (e

Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things

“…Lloyd-Jones and Humphreys (1997aHumphreys ( , 1997b have suggested that neurologicalimpairments may exacerbate previously existing normal processing differences. We present a similar case here.…”

“…Local parts take longer to be processed than more global aspects of shape such as outline contour (e.g., Eriksen, O'Hara, & Eriksen, 1982;Hughes, Nozawa, & Kitterle, 1996;Kimchi, 1992;Lupker, 1979;Navon, 1977;Sanocki,1993;Townsend, Hu, & Kadlec, 1988;Watt, 1988). It follows that a processing difficulty for living things will be more evident in tasks where local features are fully processed, such as semantic categorization and naming with unlimited exposure durations (Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997a, 1997b than in tasks where this may not be the case, such as naming at short exposure durations (e.g., Humphreys et al, 1995) and object decision (Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997b). In contrast, with short exposure durations, a processing difficulty for nonliving things emerges because performance is based primarily on global aspects of shape and, in particular, the low diagnosticity of outline contour for recognition of nonliving things relative to living things increases processing time.…”

“…Second, deficits may reflect a selective problem in lexical retrieval rather than retrieval of visual or semantic knowledge (Farah & Wallace, 1992;Hart, Berndt, & Caramazza, 1985;Luckhurst & Lloyd-Jones,2001). Finally, and of most relevance here, authors have argued that category-specific deficits in the recognition and naming of living things may be artefactual (Funnell & Hodges, 1996;Funnell & Sheridan, 1992;Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997a, 1997bStewart, Parkin, & Hunkin, 1992).…”

A role for action knowledge in visual object identification

“…In healthy participants, visual identification is influenced by visual similarity: Items that come from visually dissimilar categories are identified faster than items that come from visually similar categories (Dickerson & Humphreys, 1999;Humphreys, Riddoch, & Quinlan, 1988;Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997a, 1997b. Visual similarity also impacts the identification performance of patients with visual agnosia.…”

Stroop effects in bilingual translation

“…Although the two tasks share many of the same component processes, they also differ in ways that may potentially affect language selection. For example, in picture naming, the process of identifying the pictured object is thought to require the computation of a structural description that is likely to share depicted features with other objects drawn from the same semantic category (e.g., Lloyd-Jones & Humphreys, 1997). In translation, the presented word also has to be identified, but the processes that contribute to word recognition are likely to involve the activation of word neighbors that share lexical, rather than visual/semantic, features with the target.…”