Context effects on object recognition in real-world environments: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The environments that we live in impact on our ability to recognise objects, with recognition being facilitated when objects appear in expected locations (congruent) compared to unexpected locations (incongruent). However, these findings are based on experiments where the object is isolated from its environment. Moreover, it is not clear which components of the recognition process are impacted by the environment. In this experiment, we seek to examine the impact real world environments have on object recognition. Specifically, we will use mobile electroencephalography (mEEG) and augmented reality (AR) to investigate how the visual and semantic processing aspects of object recognition are changed by the environment. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We will use AR to place congruent and incongruent virtual objects around indoor and outdoor environments. During the experiment a total of 34 participants will walk around the environments and find these objects while we record their eye movements and neural signals. We will perform two primary analyses. First, we will analyse the event-related potential (ERP) data using paired samples t-tests in the N300/400 time windows in an attempt to replicate congruency effects on the N300/400. Second, we will use representational similarity analysis (RSA) and computational models of vision and semantics to determine how visual and semantic processes are changed by congruency. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Based on previous literature, we hypothesise that scene-object congruence would facilitate object recognition. For ERPs, we predict a congruency effect in the N300/N400, and for RSA we predict that higher level visual and semantic information will be represented earlier for congruent scenes than incongruent scenes. By collecting mEEG data while participants are exploring a real-world environment, we will be able to determine the impact of a natural context on object recognition, and the different processing stages of object recognition. </ns4:p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.021 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".