Independence Between Shape and Texture Processing in Single-Object but not in Object-Ensemble Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral research has demonstrated that the shape and the texture of a single object can be processed independently of each other (Cant et al., 2008). Consistent with this behavioral finding, neuroimaging results have shown that an object’s shape and texture are processed in distinct brain regions, with shape in the lateral occipital area and texture in parahippocampal cortex (Cant & Goodale, 2007). Meanwhile, objects in our environment are not always seen in isolation and there are ample instances in which multiple objects are grouped together as an ensemble (e.g. leaves on a tree). We recently showed that the processing of object ensembles also involves parahippocampal cortex (Cant & Xu, 2012) and that the shape and texture of ensemble elements are processed together within this brain region (Cant & Xu, VSS 2011). These neural data suggest that the independence seen between shape and texture processing in single-object perception would not be observed in object-ensemble perception. In the present study, we tested this prediction. Specifically, we examined whether observers could selectively attend to the shape of ensemble elements while ignoring changes in an unattended texture feature, and vice versa. Across five behavioral experiments, we replicated previous findings of independence between shape and texture processing in single objects, finding that changes in an unattended object feature did not affect the processing of an attended object feature. In contrast, we observed that changes in an unattended ensemble feature negatively impacted the processing of an attended ensemble feature, indicating that ensemble shape and texture are not processed independently, consistent with our prediction. Moreover, we found that processing ensemble feature changes more locally (similar to single-object processing) eliminated interference, whereas processing ensemble feature changes more globally produced interference. Taken together, these findings suggest that distinct cognitive and neural mechanisms are involved in single-object and object-ensemble perception. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".