![]() |
CiteULike | ![]() |
voiklis's CiteULike | ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Log in | ![]() |
Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 11, No. 1. (1985), pp. 70-84.
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
Posting History
AbstractThree object-recognition experiments with 36 undergraduates tested the category-differentiation and preferred-level hypotheses of the basic level advantage in object identification. It is noted that, when people are asked to decide whether an object is in a given category, they generally respond faster when the category is at the basic level (e.g., car) than when it is at the superordinate level (e.g., vehicle) or the subordinate level (e.g., sedan). Basic categories have shorter and more frequent names, are learned earlier, and are usually more highly differentiated than other categories (they are both specific and distinctive), but it is not clear which of these factors is responsible for the faster response to basic categories. Results of the present experiments indicate that objects could be identified fastest as members of differentiated categories, even when such categories had longer names and were learned later than less differentiated categories; atypical subordinate categories (e.g., racing car) that were highly differentiated were responded to as fast as basic categories in object recognition. Findings rule out the hypothesis that objects are necessarily identified as members of basic categories before further identification. Implications of these findings for the use of category names as definite description in discourse are discussed.
BibTeX record
RIS record