This article introduces a generative model of category representation that uses computer vision methods to extract category-consistent features (CCFs) directly from images of category exemplars. The model was trained on 4,800 images of common objects, and CCFs were obtained for 68 categories spanning subordinate, basic, and superordinate levels in a category hierarchy. When participants searched for these same categories, targets cued at the subordinate level were preferentially fixated, but fixated targets were verified faster when they followed a basic-level cue. The subordinate-level advantage in guidance is explained by the number of target-category CCFs, a measure of category specificity that decreases with movement up the category hierarchy. The basic-level advantage in verification is explained by multiplying the number of CCFs by sibling distance, a measure of category distinctiveness. With this model, the visual representations of real-world object categories, each learned from the vast numbers of image exemplars accumulated throughout everyday experience, can finally be studied.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355–365.
3.
AshbyF. G.MaddoxW. T. (1993). Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 38, 423–466.
4.
AshbyF. G.MaddoxW. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149–178.
5.
CastelhanoM. S.PollatsekA.CaveK. (2008). Typicality aids search for an unspecified target, but only in identification, and not in attentional guidance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 795–801.
6.
Chin-ParkerS.RossB. H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: A comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 216–226.
7.
CollinsA. M.QuillianM. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
8.
CollinsR. T.LiuY.LeordeanuM. (2005). Online selection of discriminative tracking features. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27, 1631–1643.
DudaR. O.HartP. E.StorkD. G. (2012). Pattern classification. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
GoldstoneR. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125–157.
12.
GreenD.SwetsJ. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Krieger.
13.
KaplanA. S.MurphyG. L. (2000). Category learning with minimal prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 829–846.
14.
Khaligh-RazaviS.-M.KriegeskorteN. (2014). Deep supervised, but not unsupervised, modelsmayexplain IT cortical representation. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(11), Article e1003915. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003915
15.
KruschkeJ. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.
16.
KurtzK. J. (2015). Human category learning: Toward a broader explanatory account. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 63, 77–114.
17.
LeveringK. R.KurtzK. J. (2014). Observation versus classification in supervised category learning. Memory & Cognition, 43, 266–282.
18.
LibermanA. M.HarrisK. S.HoffmanH. S.GriffithB. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.
19.
LoveB. C.MedinD. L.GureckisT. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.
20.
LoweD. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60, 91–110.
21.
MaxfieldJ. T.StadlerW. D.ZelinskyG. J. (2014). Effects of target typicality on categorical search. Journal of Vision, 14(12), Article 1. doi:10.1167/14.12.1
22.
MaxfieldJ. T.ZelinskyG. J. (2012). Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search. Visual Cognition, 20, 1153–1163.
23.
MedinD. L.SchafferM. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
24.
MervisC. B.RoschE. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.
25.
MurphyG. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
MurphyG. L.BrownellH. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 70–84.
27.
NosofskyR. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
28.
OliversC.PetersJ.RoosH.RoelfsemaP. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 327–334.
29.
PazzaniM. (1991). The influence of prior knowledge on concept acquisition: Experimental and computational results. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 416–432.
30.
RegierT.KayP. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 439–446.
31.
RoschE. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
32.
RoschE. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In RoschE.LloydB. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
RussJ. C. (2011). The image processing handbook (6th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
35.
SchmidtJ.MacNamaraA.ProudfitG. H.ZelinskyG. J. (2014). More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: Evidence from contralateral delay activity. Journal of Vision, 14(3), Article 8. doi:10.1167/14.3.8
36.
SchmidtJ.ZelinskyG. J. (2009). Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1904–1914.
37.
SnodgrassJ. G.VanderwartM. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Normed for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
38.
TanakaJ. W.TaylorM. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457–482.
39.
UllmanS.Vidal-NaquetM.SaliE. (2002). Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 682–687.
40.
UlusoyI.BishopC. M. (2005). Generative versus discriminative methods for object recognition. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition: CVPR 2005 (pp. 258–265). New York, NY: IEEE.
41.
van de WeijerJ.SchmidC. (2006). Coloring local feature extraction. In LeonardisA.BischofH.PinzA. (Eds.), Computer Vision – ECCV 2006: 9th European Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3952, pp. 334–348). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
42.
ZelinskyG. J.AdeliH.PengY.SamarasD. (2013). Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130058.
43.
ZelinskyG. J.BisleyJ. W. (2015). The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339, 154–164.
44.
ZelinskyG. J.PengY.BergA. C.SamarasD. (2013). Modeling guidance and recognition in categorical search: Bridging human and computer object detection. Journal of Vision, 13(3), Article 30. doi:10.1167/13.3.30
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
