A natural bias for basic-level object categorizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People can categorize the same object at different levels of abstraction (i.e., superordinate, basic, and subordinate). Of these, there is a bias to the basic level. However, the origin of the bias to the basic level remains unsettled. For categorization researchers, the bias is due to the organization of categories in memory producing faster access to the basic level (Murphy, 1991). For recognition researchers the bias arises because the visual system primarily extracts parts, and these parts are utilized to represent categories at the basic level in memory (Biederman, 1987). Here, we test a third alternative: A basic-level bias could naturally arise from a bias on the distribution of perceptually available visual cues. Namely, basic-level categorizations could be invariant to scale, whereas subordinate categorizations could depend on scale. In Experiment 1, 20 observers learned 2 exemplars of 8 species of 3D rendered, shaded animals varying in size (6 sizes spanning 12, 6, 3, 1.5, .75, .38 deg of visual angle on the screen). In a verification task, an animal name (either subordinate or basic) was followed by a low-contrast version of the animals with a level of Gaussian additive white noise adjusted to maintain performance at 75% correct. Computations of d′ for each size revealed basic and subordinate slope differences: d′ slopes for the basic-level rose quickly to reach ceiling levels, indicating a relative independence to scale, whereas subordinate-level slopes rose slowly, never reaching ceiling, indicating a dependence on scale. To assign this difference in performance to specific scale cues, we adapted Bubbles (Gosselin and Schyns, 2001) to randomly destroy the phase information of a 2D Fourier Transform of the animal stimuli whilst keep the contrast energy constant. The resulting profile of the use of scale information reveals the expected bias for fine scale cues at the subordinate level in contrast to the basic level which is scale invariant.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".