Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:32:33.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of visual and nonvisual attributes in visual object identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2006

TOM A. SCHWEIZER  and
MIKE J. DIXON
TOM A. SCHWEIZER
Affiliation:
Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, The Rotman Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
MIKE J. DIXON
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To elucidate the role of visual and nonvisual attribute knowledge on visual object identification, we present data from three patients, each with visual object identification impairments as a result of different etiologies. Patients were shown novel computer-generated shapes paired with different labels referencing known entities. On test trials they were shown the novel shapes alone and had to identify them by generating the label with which they were formerly paired. In all conditions the same triad of computer-generated shapes were used. In one condition, the labels (banjo, guitar, violin) referenced entities that were both visually similar and similar in terms of their nonvisual attributes within semantics. In separate conditions we used labels (e.g., spike, straw, pencil or snorkel, cane, crowbar) that referenced entities that were similar in terms of their visual attributes but were dissimilar in terms of their nonvisual attributes. The results revealed that nonvisual attribute information profoundly influenced visual object identification. Our patients performed significantly better when attempting to identify shape triads whose labels referenced objects with distinct nonvisual attributes versus shape triads whose labels referenced objects with similar nonvisual attributes. We conclude that the nonvisual aspects of meaning must be taken into consideration when assessing visual object identification impairments. (JINS, 2006, 12, 176–183.)

Keywords

Object identificationSemanticsStrokeHerpes simplex encephalitisDementia
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , March 2006 , pp. 176 - 183
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arguin, M., Bub, D., & Dudek, G. (1996). Shape integration for visual object recognition and its implication in category-specific visual agnosia. Visual Cognition, 3, 221–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, D. & Gum, T. (1990). Psychlab [computer software]. McGill technical manuals. McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Chao, L.L., Haxby, J.V., & Martin, A. (1999). Attribute-based neural substrate in posterior temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 913–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, L.L. & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., & Van Hoesen, G.W. (1982). Prosopagnosia: Anatomic basis and behavioral mechanisms. Neurology, 32, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M., Bub, D.N., & Arguin, M. (1997). The interaction of object form and object meaning in the identification performance of a patient with category-specific visual agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 1085–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M.J., Bub, D.N., & Arguin, M. (1998). Semantic and visual determinants of face recognition in a prosopagnosic patient. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M.J., Bub, D.N., Chertkow, H., & Arguin, M. (1999). Object identification deficits in dementia of the Alzheimer type: Combined effects of semantic and visual proximity. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 330–345.Google Scholar
Dixon, M.J., Desmarais, G., Gojmerac, C., Schweizer, T.A., & Bub, D.N. (2002). The role of premorbid expertise on object identification in a patient with category-specific visual agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 410–419.Google Scholar
Gaffan, D. & Heywood, C.A. (1993). A spurious category-specific visual agnosia for living things in normal and nonhuman primates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, I., James, T.W., Curby, K.M., & Tarr, M.J. (2003). The influence of conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, T.W. & Gauthier, I. (2004). Brain areas engaged during visual judgments by involuntary access to novel semantic information. Vision Research, 44, 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatzky, R.L., Martin, G.L., & Kane, R.A. (1982). Semantic interpretation effects on memory for faces. Memory and Cognition, 10, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A., Haxby, J.V., Lalonde, F.M., Wiggs, C.L., & Ungerleider, L.G. (1995). Discrete cortical regions associated with knowledge of colour and knowledge of action. Science, 270, 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A., Ungerleider, L.G., & Haxby, J.V. (2000). Category specificity and the brain: The sensory/motor model of semantic representations of objects. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin, A., Wiggs, C.L., Ungerleider, L.G., & Haxby, J.V. (1996). Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature, 379, 649–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MRC Psycholinguistic Database. (2004). http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwamrc.htm
Perani, D., Cappa, S.F., Bettinardi, V., Bressi, S., Gorno-Tempini, M.L., Matarrese, M., & Fazio, F. (1995). Different neural systems for the recognition of animals and manmade tools. Neuroreport, 6, 1637–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddoch, M.J. & Humphreys, G.W. (1993). The Birmingham Object Recognition Battery (BORB). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Schweizer, T.A., Dixon, M.J., Westwood, D., & Piskopos, M. (2001). Contribution of visual and semantic proximity to identification performance in a viral encephalitis patient. Brain and Cognition, 46, 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A.R. (1997a). A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1319–1327.Google Scholar
Tranel, D., Logan, C.G., Frank, R.J., & Damasio A.R. (1997b). Explaining category-related effects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: Operationalization and analysis of factors. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1329–1339.Google Scholar
Trenerry, M.R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W.R. (1990). Visual Search and Attention Test. Lutz, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.