MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996363626 · doi:10.1167/10.7.988

The Speed of Categorization: A Priority for People?

2010· article· en· W1996363626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Mack, Thomas J. Palmeri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objects are typically categorized fastest at the basic level (“dog”) relative to more superordinate (“animal”) or subordinate (“labrador retriever”) levels (Rosch et al., 1976). A traditional explanation for this basic-level advantage is that an initial stage of processing first categorizes objects at the basic level (Grill-Spector & Kanwisher, 2005; Jolicoeur, Gluck, & Kosslyn, 1984), but this has been challenged by more recent findings (e.g., Bowers & Jones, 2008; Mace et al., 2009; Mack et al., 2008, 2009; Rogers & Patterson, 2007). In the current study, we explored whether there is temporal priority in processing people by measuring the time course of categorization and evaluating behavioral data using a computational model of perceptual decision making (Ratcliff, 1978). We contrasted speeded categorization of people versus speeded categorization of dogs, manipulating the similarity between the targets and distractors (similar distractors were other animals and dissimilar distractors were nonliving objects) and the homogeneity of the set of distractors (two versus ten object categories). Participants were more accurate and faster for both people and dogs when distractors were dissimilar to the targets and the homogeneity of distractors did not have an effect on performance. But critically, we found a temporal advantage for categorizing people both in overall reaction times and in measures of minimal processing time for successful categorization. Not only were people categorized faster than dogs, they were also categorized earlier. Model predictions suggested that a temporal advantage for categorizing people arises from both a priority in perceptual encoding and a faster accumulation of evidence for a decision. The current study significantly extends recent work by further characterizing the time course of categorization at different levels and for different kinds of objects and investigating the underlying mechanisms within a computational framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207