A Phone in a Basket Looks Like a Knife in a Cup: Role-Filler Independence in Visual Processing.

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2024-06-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00146
Alon Hafri, Michael F Bonner, Barbara Landau, Chaz Firestone
{"title":"A Phone in a Basket Looks Like a Knife in a Cup: Role-Filler Independence in Visual Processing.","authors":"Alon Hafri, Michael F Bonner, Barbara Landau, Chaz Firestone","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When a piece of fruit is in a bowl, and the bowl is on a table, we appreciate not only the individual objects and their features, but also the relations <i>containment</i> and <i>support</i>, which abstract away from the particular objects involved. Independent representation of roles (e.g., containers vs. supporters) and \"fillers\" of those roles (e.g., bowls vs. cups, tables vs. chairs) is a core principle of language and higher-level reasoning. But does such role-filler independence also arise in automatic visual processing? Here, we show that it does, by exploring a surprising error that such independence can produce. In four experiments, participants saw a stream of images containing different objects arranged in force-dynamic relations-e.g., a phone contained in a basket, a marker resting on a garbage can, or a knife sitting in a cup. Participants had to respond to a single target image (e.g., a phone in a basket) within a stream of distractors presented under time constraints. Surprisingly, even though participants completed this task quickly and accurately, they false-alarmed more often to images matching the target's relational category than to those that did not-even when those images involved completely different objects. In other words, participants searching for a phone in a basket were more likely to mistakenly respond to a knife in a cup than to a marker on a garbage can. Follow-up experiments ruled out strategic responses and also controlled for various confounding image features. We suggest that visual processing represents relations abstractly, in ways that separate roles from fillers.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"8 ","pages":"766-794"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11219067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When a piece of fruit is in a bowl, and the bowl is on a table, we appreciate not only the individual objects and their features, but also the relations containment and support, which abstract away from the particular objects involved. Independent representation of roles (e.g., containers vs. supporters) and "fillers" of those roles (e.g., bowls vs. cups, tables vs. chairs) is a core principle of language and higher-level reasoning. But does such role-filler independence also arise in automatic visual processing? Here, we show that it does, by exploring a surprising error that such independence can produce. In four experiments, participants saw a stream of images containing different objects arranged in force-dynamic relations-e.g., a phone contained in a basket, a marker resting on a garbage can, or a knife sitting in a cup. Participants had to respond to a single target image (e.g., a phone in a basket) within a stream of distractors presented under time constraints. Surprisingly, even though participants completed this task quickly and accurately, they false-alarmed more often to images matching the target's relational category than to those that did not-even when those images involved completely different objects. In other words, participants searching for a phone in a basket were more likely to mistakenly respond to a knife in a cup than to a marker on a garbage can. Follow-up experiments ruled out strategic responses and also controlled for various confounding image features. We suggest that visual processing represents relations abstractly, in ways that separate roles from fillers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
篮中的手机就像杯中的刀:视觉处理中的角色填充独立性
当一块水果放在一个碗里,而碗放在一张桌子上时,我们欣赏的不仅是单个物体及其特征,还有从特定物体中抽象出来的 "容纳 "和 "支持 "关系。独立表示角色(如容器与支撑物)和这些角色的 "填充物"(如碗与杯子、桌子与椅子)是语言和高级推理的核心原则。但是,这种角色-填充物的独立性是否也会出现在自动视觉处理过程中呢?在这里,我们通过探索这种独立性可能产生的惊人错误,证明了它确实存在。在四项实验中,参与者看到的图像流包含了以力-动态关系排列的不同物体--例如,装在篮子里的手机、放在垃圾桶上的记号笔或放在杯子里的小刀。受试者必须在时间限制下,对一组干扰图像中的单个目标图像(如篮子里的手机)做出反应。令人惊讶的是,尽管受试者快速准确地完成了这项任务,但他们对与目标图像的关系类别相匹配的图像发出误报的频率却高于那些不匹配的图像--即使这些图像涉及的是完全不同的物体。换句话说,在篮子里寻找手机的受试者更有可能对杯子里的小刀做出错误反应,而不是对垃圾桶上的记号笔做出错误反应。后续实验排除了策略性反应,并控制了各种干扰图像特征。我们认为,视觉处理以抽象的方式表示关系,将角色与填充物区分开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Approximating Human-Level 3D Visual Inferences With Deep Neural Networks. Prosodic Cues Support Inferences About the Question's Pedagogical Intent. The Double Standard of Ownership. Combination and Differentiation Theories of Categorization: A Comparison Using Participants' Categorization Descriptions. Investigating Sensitivity to Shared Information and Personal Experience in Children's Use of Majority Information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1