Three experiments were conducted to explore the role of colour and other surface properties in object recognition. The effects of manipulating the availability of surface-based information on object naming in a patient with visual form agnosia and in two age-matched control subjects were examined in experiment 1. The objects were presented under seven different viewing conditions ranging from a full view of the actual objects to line drawings of those same objects. The presence of colour and other surface properties aided the recognition of natural objects such as fruits and vegetables in both the patient and the control subjects. Experiment 2 was focused on four of the critical viewing conditions used in experiment 1 but with a large sample of normal subjects. As in experiment 1, it was found that surface properties, particularly colour, aided the naming of natural objects. The presence of colour did not facilitate the naming of manufactured objects. Experiment 3 was focused on possible ways by which colour could assist in the recognition of natural objects and it was found that object naming was facilitated only if the objects were presented in their usual colour. The results of the experiments show that colour does improve recognition for some types of objects and that the improvement occurs at a high level of visual analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerA, 1950“Course and outcome of visual agnosia”Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease11141–51.
2.
ArguinMBubDDudekG, (submitted) “Shape integration for visual object recognition and its implication in category specific visual agnosia”.
3.
BarbourC GMeyerG W, 1992“Visual cues and pictorial limitations for computer generated photo-realistic images”The Visual Computer9151–165.
4.
BensonD FGreenbergJ P, 1969“Visual form agnosia: A specific defect in visual discrimination”Archives of Neurology2082–89.
5.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-Components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147.
6.
BiedermanIJuG, 1988“Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition”Cognitive Psychology2038–64.
7.
BrodieE EWallaceA MSharratB, 1991“Effect of surface characteristics and style of production on naming and verification of pictorial stimuli”American Journal of Psychology104517–545.
8.
DavidoffJ BOstergaardA L, 1988“The role of colour in categorical judgements”The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology40A533–544.
9.
DeanP, 1982“Visual behavior in monkeys with inferotemporal lesions”, in Analysis of Visual Behavior Eds IngleD JGoodaleM AMansfieldR J W, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 587–628.
10.
DunnL M, 1959Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service Inc).
11.
DunnL MDunnL A, 1981Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised, Form L) (Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service Inc).
12.
EdelmanSBülthoffH H, 1992“Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects”Vision Research122385–2400.
13.
EfronR, 1968“What is perception?”, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of ScienceVolume 4 Eds CohenR SWartofskyM, (Dordrecht: D Reidel) pp 137–173.
14.
van EssenD CAndersonC HFellemanD J, 1992“Information processing in the primate visual system: An integrated systems perspective”Science255419–423.
15.
FarahM J, 1990Visual Agnosia (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
16.
FujitaITanakaKItoMChengK, 1992“Columns for visual features of objects in monkey inferotemporal cortex”Nature (London)360343–346.
17.
GarnerW, 1974The Processing of Information and Structure (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
18.
GoodaleM AMilnerA D, 1992“Separate visual pathways for perception and action”Trends in Neurosciences1520–25.
19.
GoodaleM AMilnerA DJakobsonL SCareyD P, 1991“A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them”Nature (London)349154–156.
20.
GrossbergSMingollaE, 1985“Neural dynamics of perceptual grouping: Textures, boundaries and emergent segmentations”Perception & Psychophysics38141–171.
21.
HumphreyG KGoodaleM AGurnseyR, 1991“Orientation discrimination in a visual form agnosic: Evidence from the McCollough effect”Psychological Science2331–335.
22.
HumphreyG KKhanS C, 1992“Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects”Canadian Journal of Psychology46170–190.
23.
HumphreysG WRiddochM J, 1987To See but not to See: A Case Study of Visual Agnosia (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
24.
KirkS AMcCarthyJ JKirkW D, 1968Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability (Revised) (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).
25.
LivingstoneMHubelD, 1988“Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: Anatomy, physiology, and perception”Science240740–749.
26.
LoweD, 1985Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition (Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff).
27.
McRaeK, 1992“Correlated properties in artifact and natural kind concepts”, in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 349–354.
28.
Ménard-ButeauCCavanaghP, 1984“Localisation de l'interférence forme/couleur au niveau perceptuel dans une tâche de type Stroop avec des stimuli-dessins”Canadian Journal of Psychology38421–439.
29.
MilnerA DHeywoodC A, 1989“A disorder of lightness discrimination in a case of visual form agnosia”Cortex25489–494.
30.
MilnerA DPerrettD IJohnstonR SBenzonP JJordanT RHeeleyD WBettucciDMortaraFMutaniRTerazziEDavidsonD L, 1991“Perception and action in visual form agnosia”Brain114405–428.
31.
OstergaardA LDavidoffJ B, 1985“Some effects of color on naming and recognition of objects” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory; and Cognition11579–587.
32.
PriceC JHumphreysG W, 1989“The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming”; Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology41A797–828.
33.
RiddochM JHumphreysG W, 1987b“Visual object processing in optic aphasia: A case of semantic access agnosia”Cognitive Neuropsychology4131–185.
34.
SchillerP HLogothetisN K, 1990“The color-opponent and broad-band channels of the primate visual system”Trends in Neurosciences13392–398.
35.
SchuellH, 1977Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis of Aphasia (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).
36.
ServosPGoodaleM AHumphreyG K, 1993“The drawing of objects by a visual form agnosic: Contribution of surface properties and memorial representations”Neuropsychologia31251–259.
37.
SwainM JBallardD H, 1991“Color indexing”International Journal of Computer Vision711–32.
38.
TanakaK, 1992“Inferotemporal cortex and higher visual functions”Current Opinion in Neurobiology2502–505.
39.
TreismanA, 1988“Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology40A201–237.
40.
UllmanS, 1989“Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition”Cognition32193–254.
41.
UngerleiderL GMishkinM, 1982“Two cortical visual systems”, in Analysis of Visual Behavior Eds IngleD JGoodaleM AMansfieldR J W, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 549–586.
42.
WurmL HLeggeG EIsenbergL MLuebkerA, 1993“Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19899–911.
43.
YoungA WEllisH D, 1989“Childhood prosopagnosia”Brain and Cognition916–47.
44.
ZekiS, 1990“A century of cerebral achromatopsia”Brain1131721–1777.
