Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Subjects were tested for their ability to identify objects that were represented by an array of dots that marked the major contours, usually only the outer boundary. Each dot was briefly flashed to make its position known, and a major variable was the time interv...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Greene Ernest, Ogden R
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2012-11-01
Series:Behavioral and Brain Functions
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/8/1/53
id doaj-1d4d4bad5cd84a739f7b614767e61bb8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1d4d4bad5cd84a739f7b614767e61bb82020-11-24T21:24:38ZengBMCBehavioral and Brain Functions1744-90812012-11-01815310.1186/1744-9081-8-53Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocolGreene ErnestOgden R<p>Abstract</p> <p>Subjects were tested for their ability to identify objects that were represented by an array of dots that marked the major contours, usually only the outer boundary. Each dot was briefly flashed to make its position known, and a major variable was the time interval that was required to flash all the dots for a given shape. Recognition declined as the total time for display of the dot inventory was increased. Each shape was shown to a given subject only once and it was either recognized -- named – or not. Although the recorded response was binary, a large number of subjects was tested, which made it possible to derive regression functions and thus specify an intercept and slope for each shape. Shapes differed substantially in their slopes, which is likely due to the amount of redundant information provided by neighboring dots. Indices of shape attributes were also derived, specifically Attneave’s indices of complexity, mean curvature, inflection count, and symmetry. Three of the four shape attributes were significantly related to intercept and slope levels, but none made a substantial contribution. This suggests that these attributes are not essential properties that define shapes and allow for recognition.</p> http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/8/1/53Shape recognitionContour attributesShape encoding
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Greene Ernest
Ogden R
spellingShingle Greene Ernest
Ogden R
Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
Behavioral and Brain Functions
Shape recognition
Contour attributes
Shape encoding
author_facet Greene Ernest
Ogden R
author_sort Greene Ernest
title Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
title_short Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
title_full Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
title_fullStr Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
title_sort evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol
publisher BMC
series Behavioral and Brain Functions
issn 1744-9081
publishDate 2012-11-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Subjects were tested for their ability to identify objects that were represented by an array of dots that marked the major contours, usually only the outer boundary. Each dot was briefly flashed to make its position known, and a major variable was the time interval that was required to flash all the dots for a given shape. Recognition declined as the total time for display of the dot inventory was increased. Each shape was shown to a given subject only once and it was either recognized -- named – or not. Although the recorded response was binary, a large number of subjects was tested, which made it possible to derive regression functions and thus specify an intercept and slope for each shape. Shapes differed substantially in their slopes, which is likely due to the amount of redundant information provided by neighboring dots. Indices of shape attributes were also derived, specifically Attneave’s indices of complexity, mean curvature, inflection count, and symmetry. Three of the four shape attributes were significantly related to intercept and slope levels, but none made a substantial contribution. This suggests that these attributes are not essential properties that define shapes and allow for recognition.</p>
topic Shape recognition
Contour attributes
Shape encoding
url http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/8/1/53
work_keys_str_mv AT greeneernest evaluatingthecontributionofshapeattributestorecognitionusingtheminimaltransientdiscretecueprotocol
AT ogdenr evaluatingthecontributionofshapeattributestorecognitionusingtheminimaltransientdiscretecueprotocol
_version_ 1725987234164768768