The purpose was to investigate the effects of 3-D form features on the object-categorization process. 30 subjects [17 male and 13 female undergraduate industrial design students whose mean age was 20.7 yr. (SD = 1.5)] were asked to classify 32 3-D prismatic images according to their similarity. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analyses indicated that the classification process was strongly related to the prisms' compounded features. The attention-weighting of each individual form feature was calculated by regression analysis which further indicated that each feature had a different effect on the categorizing process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R.BetzJ. (2001) A hybrid model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 629–647.
2.
AshbyF. G. (1992) Multidimensional models of categorization. In AshbyF. G. (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 449–483.
3.
BrunerJ. S.GoodnowJ. J.AustinG. A. (1956) A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
4.
GoldstoneR. L.LippaY.ShiffrinR. M. (2001) Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78, 27–43.
5.
HamptonJ.DuboisD. (1993) Psychological models of concepts: introduction. In MechelenI. V.HamptonJ.MichalskiR. S.TheunsP. (Eds.), Categories and concepts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 11–34.
6.
HeapsC.HandelS. (1999) Similarity and features of natural textures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 299–320.
7.
HomaD.SmithC.MacakC.JohovichJ.OsorioD. (2001) Recognition of facial prototype: the importance of categorical structure and degree of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 443–474.
8.
JohansenM. K.PalmeriT. J. (2002) Are there representational shifts during category learning?Cognitive Psychology, 45, 482–553.
9.
MedinD. L.SchafferM. M. (1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 86, 207–238.
10.
MontgomeryD. C.PeckE. A. (1992) Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
11.
NosofskyR. M. (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
12.
NosofskyR. M. (1989) Example-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 282–304.
13.
NosofskyR. M. (1991) Tests of an experimental models for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 3–27.
14.
NosofskyR. M. (1992) Similarity scaling and cognitive process model. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 25–53.
15.
PalmeriT. J. (1997) Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 324–354.
16.
ReedS. K. (1972) Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382–407.
17.
SchiffmanS. S.ReynoldsM. L.YoungF. W. (1981) Introduction to multidimensional scaling: theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
ShepardR. N. (1964) Attention of the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 54–87.
19.
ShepardR. N. (1986) Discrimination and generalization in identification and classification: comment on Nosofsky. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 58–61.
20.
SmithJ. D. (1989) Analytic and holistic processes in categorization. In SheppB. E.BallesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 297–324.
21.
TverskyA. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
