Some empirical studies have stated that people usually categorize scenes according to the suitability of their elements. This paper proposes a method of measuring the typicality of naturalistic objects contained in environmental scenes. 517 subjects gave a score of suitability for 110 object-scene pairs. We used a logistic model for the measurements which enabled us to obtain two indexes, atypicality and discrimination. Analysis showed that the objects could be arranged on a numerical scale according to their typicality in a scene, and from this we concluded that logistic models are a useful and powerful method of measuring typicality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Assessment System Corporation. (1986) User's manual for ITEMANTM, RASCALTM and ASCALTMMinneapolis, MN: Author.
2.
BeltranF. S.HerrandoS.PelegrinaM. (1992) Measuring the typicality of objects included in environmental scenes: a first scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 827–831.
3.
BiedermanI.MezzanotteR. J.RabinowitzJ. C. (1982) Scene perception: detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143–177.
4.
BirnbaumA. (1968) Some latent trait models and the use inferring an examinee's ability. In LordF. M.NovickM. R. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pp. 397–424.
5.
BurnsL. D.CaugheyC. C. (1992) Category use in first impressions of restaurant interiors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 107–110.
6.
FlowersJ. H.PolanskyM. L.KarlS. (1981) Familiarity redundancy and the spatial control of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 157–166.
7.
LoftusG. R.MackworthN. H. (1978) Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 565–572.
8.
MaltB. C.SmithE. E. (1982) The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory & Cognition, 10, 69–75.
9.
PalmerS. E. (1975) The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory & Cognition, 3, 519–526.
10.
PedersenD. M. (1986) Perception of interior designs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 671–676.
11.
PezdekK. (1978) Recognition memory for related pictures. Memory & Cognition, 6, 64–69.
12.
PezdekK.WhetstoneT.ReynoldsK.AskariB.DoughertyT. (1989) Memory for real-world scenes: the role of consistency with schema expectationJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 587–595.
13.
PurcellA. T. (1991) The effects of depth of processing, typicality and effect on recognition memory for instances of single detached houses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 163–177.
14.
StallerJ. D.LappinJ. S. (1981) Visual detection of multiletter patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1258–1272.
15.
WeisD. J. (Ed.) (1983) New horizons in testing latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing. New York: Academic Press.
