The Relative Influences of Form and Action Information on Object Identification and Action Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has shown that visually presenting an object can activate associated structural and functional information. We contrasted the relative impacts of form and action information carried by verbal labels in a visual identification task and an action production task. We paired eight novel graspable objects with novel actions and identified each object/action pair with a verbal label that carried information that was congruent or incongruent with either the form of the object or the action associated with the object. We then presented participants with sequences of learning trials where participants saw each object/action/name triad, and test trials where participants were presented with individual objects. Furthermore, we either asked participants to imitate the actions during learning trials, or to only watch the action demonstration. In Experiment 1, participants visually identified each object using its label (no action was produced), and in Experiment 2, we asked participants to produce the action associated with each object (no naming was required). In both experiments, using labels carrying congruent information facilitated performance. Importantly, labels carrying information congruent with an object’s form facilitated performance to a greater extent than using labels carrying information congruent with an object’s action. Learning condition did not impact the results. Interestingly, only action information seemed to drive error patterns – when labels were incongruent with an object’s action, participants tended to produce errors associated with label information. These findings confirm that information associated with verbal labels is recruited when these are used to identify novel objects, and that when congruent, this information can facilitate naming and action performance. Importantly, this finding indicates that form information associated with verbal labels may carry more weight than action information, even when the task is to perform actions and naming is not required. 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 | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".