Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c
Abstract
Object naming studies have generally observed that both normal and brain damaged individuals are faster and more accurate at
identifying non-living objects than living objects (Humphreys, Riddoch, & Quinlan, 1988; Warrington & Shallice, 1984). However, a
potential confounding variable, manipulability, has been present in past studies that may mediate this effect. Previous studies that
have observed a non-living advantage have often used manipulable and non-manipulable exemplars to represent the non-living and
living groups, respectively. Under conditions which controlled for object manipulability and familiarity, results demonstrated
advantages for the identification of non-manipulable and for living objects.
2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
0278-2626/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022
62 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
leads to expert object recognition performance which plies’’ and ‘‘kitchen utensils’’ comprised the non-living,
differs from novice object recognition. Experts with an manipulable group. Objects drawn from the categories
object category identify at specific (subordinate) levels ‘‘watercraft’’ and ‘‘land vehicles’’ formed the non-living,
roughly as fast as they do at less specific (basic) levels. non-manipulable group, while living, non-manipulable
Novices with an object category identify at less specific objects were derived from the categories ‘‘birds’’ and
levels much more quickly than at specific levels (Tanaka ‘‘dogs.’’ In total, the object set consisted of 144 exemp-
& Taylor, 1991). Additionally, atypical exemplars within lars with 36 in each of the living, manipulable, non-liv-
a category such as a ‘‘penguin’’ are identified at a more ing, manipulable, living, non-manipulable, and non-
specific level most quickly as opposed to a less specific living, non-manipulable categories. The object sets used
level such as ‘‘bird’’ (Jolicoeur, Gluck, & Kosslyn, in the present experiment were adapted from those of
1984). For these reasons it is important to control for Hamm and McMullen (1998).
object familiarity and level of specificity in any study Prior to each trial, a black fixation cross that sub-
of object naming. However, these controls have not al- tended approximately 3 of visual angle was presented
ways been used in past studies. on a white background. The object names, which were
The current study provided this control by having typed in upper and lower case letters in 50-point black
participants rate each object that was identified with re- Times New Roman font, were horizontally centered
spect to its familiarity on a Likert scale. Familiarity was on the computer screen. The vertical midline of each
defined as ‘‘how often the participant thinks about or word was located 6 cm below the top of the screen.
comes in contact with the concept depicted by the ob- The gray-scale objects subtended, on average, 11 of vi-
ject’’ (Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980). To control for le- sual angle and were also horizontally centered. The ver-
vel of specificity of identification, a word–picture tical midline of each picture was located approximately
verification task was used. In this task, a subordinate 15.5 cm below the top of the computer screen.
name (e.g., Dalmatian) was presented simultaneously In all phases of the experiment, stimuli were presented
with a picture of an object and a two-alternative choice on a 16 in. View Sonic GS773 monitor. Superlab Pro 1.07
decision was made as to whether the word and picture for Windows (Cedrus) was used to present stimuli and col-
matched in meaning or not. To determine the extent lect data. In each block of trials, half of the trials were
to which manipulability influences identification perfor- ‘‘match’’ trials in which the meanings of the picture and
mance for living and non-living objects, manipulable the word were in agreement. The other half of the trials
and non-manipulable stimuli were identified from both were ‘‘mismatch’’ trials, in which the meaning of the pic-
living and non-living categories. For the purposes of this ture and word did not correspond. Mismatch names were
study, a manipulable object was defined as any object taken from the same category (living, manipulable; living,
that you could pick up with one hand. non-manipulable; non-living, manipulable; or non-living,
non-manipulable) as the pictures with which they were
presented. To indicate that a match or a mismatch trial
2. Methods had occurred, participants responded by pressing either
the ‘‘z’’ key or the ‘‘/’’ key, respectively, on a standard key-
2.1. Participants board. Both of these response keys were colour coded
with green representing a match trial and red representing
Forty undergraduate psychology students at Dalhou- a mismatch trial.
sie University participated in the present experiment for
course credit. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 26. 2.3. Procedure
All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vi-
sion and spoke English as their first language. In addi- Prior to the experiment, participants received a verbal
tion, all participants provided written informed consent. task description emphasizing both speed and accuracy
of response and completed 16 practice trials. Practice tri-
2.2. Stimuli and apparatus als were identical in structure to experimental trials and
stimuli from each of the living, manipulable, non-living,
The stimuli in the present experiment consisted of a manipulable, living, non-manipulable, and non-living,
word and a picture presented simultaneously. Pictures non-manipulable categories were employed. Stimuli
were gray-scale photographs of everyday objects (He- used in the practice trials were derived from categories
mera objects). Coloured objects were not used to avoid not tested during the experimental phase of the study.
any identification advantages that might exist for objects The structure of all trials, both practice and experi-
that have diagnostic colours such as bananas. Living, mental was identical. A fixation cross was first pre-
manipulable objects were derived from the categories sented, followed by a word–picture pair. The fixation
of ‘‘vegetables’’ and ‘‘fruit (see Hart & Gordon, cross remained on the screen for 500 ms, while the stim-
1992),’’ while objects from the categories ‘‘office sup- ulus remained for 2000 ms or until a response was made.
J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65 63
Immediately after the stimulus disappeared, the fixation paired samples t test. A significant difference was found
cross for the next trial appeared. (t (33) = 2.4, p = .02). Non-living, manipulable items
Each participant completed one block of 72 trials were identified more quickly, in keeping with many past
with 36 match trials and 36 mismatch trials. Half of studies. (see Fig. 1A)
the 144 objects were identified by any one participant
with the half identified alternating across participants. 3.1.2. Accuracy
Exemplars were randomly distributed within a block. Manipulable objects were identified more accurately
Across all participants each picture was seen on match than non-manipulable objects (F (1, 33) = 22.4,
and mismatch trials, equally often. p < .0001). When comparing the living, non-manipula-
ble and non-living, manipulable objects with a paired
samples t test, a significant difference was also observed
3. Results for accuracy (t (33) = 3.5, p = .0012). In keeping with
the reaction time analysis and with many past studies,
Correct response times to ‘‘match’’ trials were ana- greater accuracy was achieved for non-living, manipula-
lyzed since it is only on these trials that there is certainty ble objects (see Fig. 1B).
about the object representation accessed to make a
match decision. Participants were required to achieve 3.2. Restricted object set with familiarity control
accuracy rates of greater than 70% in each cell of the re-
peated measures design (living/non-living · manipula- Analyses were performed using only a set of objects
ble/non-manipulable). In addition, only response matched for frequency across all conditions. This re-
latencies within 2.5 standard deviations of the mean stricted set included 56 objects with 14/36 objects in each
reaction time for each condition were included. of the four conditions. The objects used in this analysis
Separate analyses were performed on responses to the are marked with an asterisk in the Appendix.
entire object set (36 objects per each of four categories) for
which data from 34 participants satisfied all criteria, and 3.2.1. Reaction time
to a restricted object set in which the mean and range of Manipulability again had an effect (F (1, 39) = 5.2,
familiarity ratings were matched across all four condi- p = .02). Interestingly, the direction of the effect was re-
tions for which data from 40 participants satisfied all cri- versed from that found with the entire object set. Non-
teria. This restricted object set contained 14 exemplars per manipulable objects were now identified more quickly
category. See Fig. 1 for a graphical representation of the than manipulable ones. As with the analysis of all ob-
results and the Appendix for the objects presented. jects, living objects were identified more quickly than
non-living objects (F (1, 39) = 10.6, p < .01). The previ-
3.1. Entire object set without familiarity control ously confounding categories of living, non-manipulable
and non-living, manipulable now failed to show a non-
3.1.1. Reaction time living advantage because a living advantage now existed
Manipulable objects were identified more quickly for both manipulable and non-manipulable objects (see
than non-manipulable objects (F (1, 33) = 34.8, p < Fig. 1B).
.0001). Also, living objects were identified more quickly
than non-living objects (F (1, 33) = 5.8, p = .02). To 3.2.2. Accuracy
compare the present results with many previous studies, There were no main effects or interactions with this
the confounded categories of living, non-manipulable analysis. These results are inconsistent with a speed–
and non-living, manipulable were compared using a accuracy trade-off.
Fig. 1. Mean reaction time in ms as a function of manipulability and living/non-living category for (A) the match trials for the entire object set and
for (B) the match trials for the familiarity controlled object set. Error bars are standard error of the mean. Accuracy in percentage is indicated beside
the means.
64 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
Appendix. Objects with asterisks were used in the analysis of objects controlled for frequency
J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65 65