We designed a new stimulus set with 269 line drawings of everyday artifacts and animals. The stimulus set contains several typical exemplars from a sample of 25 basic-level categories. We determined to what extent these stimuli were named at the basic level and at a more subordinate level. An additional experiment showed the validity of this calibration: typicality ratings were correlated significantly with the level of naming. In a final experiment we found that this effect depends largely on the global configuration of a stimulus as it was still apparent with degraded images obtained by locally shifting small fragments of the drawings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Behl-ChadhaG, 1996“Basic-level and superordinate-like categorical representations in early infancy”Cognition60105–141.
2.
BrodieE EWallaceA MSharratB, 1991“Effect of surface characteristics and style of production on naming and verification of pictorial stimuli”American Journal of Psychology104517–545.
3.
FarahM JLevinsonK LKleinK L, 1995“Face perception and within-category discrimination in prosopagnosia”Neuropsychologia33661–674.
4.
GauthierIAndersonA WTarrM JSkudlarskiPGoreJ C, 1996“Levels of categorization in visual object recognition studied with functional MRI”Current Biology7645–651.
5.
GeertsGHeestermansH (Eds), 1989Van Dale: Groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal [Comprehensive dictionary of the Dutch language] (11th revised edition) (Antwerp, Belgium: Van Dale Lexicografie).
6.
JohnsonK EMervisC B, 1997“Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General126248–277.
7.
JolicoeurPGluckM AKosslynS M, 1984“Pictures and names: Making the connection”Cognitive Psychology16243–275.
8.
JosephJ EProffittD R, 1996“Semantic versus perceptual influences of color in object recognition”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition22407–429.
9.
MarkmanE M, 1989Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
10.
MarsolekC J, 1999“Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition”Psychological Science10111–118.
11.
Op de BeeckHBéatseEWagemansJSunaertSVan HeckeP, 2000“The representation of shape in the context of visual object categorization tasks”NeuroImage1228–40.
12.
RoschE, 1973“On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories”, in Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language Ed. MooreT E (New York: Academic Press) pp 111–144.
13.
RoschEMervisC BGrayW DJohnsonD MBoyes-BraemP, 1976“Basic objects in natural categories”Cognitive Psychology8382–439.
14.
SnodgrassJ GVanderwartM, 1980“A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory6174–215.
15.
Van SchagenITamsmaNBruggemannFJacksonJ LMichonJ A, 1983“Namen en normen voor plaatjes [Names and norms for pictures]”Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie38236–241.
16.
WassermanE AAstleyS L, 1994“A behavioral analysis of concepts: Its application to pigeons and children”, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation volume 31 Advances in Research and Theory Ed. MedinD L (San Diego, CA: Academic Press) pp 73–132.
