Earlier Development of Analytical Than Holistic Object Recognition in Adolescence

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2013 Apr 12

PMID 23577188

Citations 4

Authors

Elley Wakui

Martin Juttner

Dean Petters

Surinder Kaur

John E Hummel

Jules Davidoff

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Previous research has shown that object recognition may develop well into late childhood and adolescence. The present study extends that research and reveals novel differences in holistic and analytic recognition performance in 7-12 year olds compared to that seen in adults. We interpret our data within a hybrid model of object recognition that proposes two parallel routes for recognition (analytic vs. holistic) modulated by attention.

Methodology/principal Findings: Using a repetition-priming paradigm, we found in Experiment 1 that children showed no holistic priming, but only analytic priming. Given that holistic priming might be thought to be more 'primitive', we confirmed in Experiment 2 that our surprising finding was not because children's analytic recognition was merely a result of name repetition.

Conclusions/significance: Our results suggest a developmental primacy of analytic object recognition. By contrast, holistic object recognition skills appear to emerge with a much more protracted trajectory extending into late adolescence.

Citing Articles

Faces and words are both associated and dissociated as evidenced by visual problems in dyslexia.

Sigurdardottir H, Arnardottir A, Halldorsdottir E Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):23000.

PMID: 34837013 PMC: 8626489. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02440-7.

Developmental Commonalities between Object and Face Recognition in Adolescence.

Juttner M, Wakui E, Petters D, Davidoff J Front Psychol. 2016; 7:385.

PMID: 27014176 PMC: 4791401. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00385.

Cultural differences in visual object recognition in 3-year-old children.

Kuwabara M, Smith L J Exp Child Psychol. 2016; 147:22-38.

PMID: 26985576 PMC: 4854758. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.006.

Development of visual systems for faces and objects: further evidence for prolonged development of the face system.

Meinhardt-Injac B, Persike M, Meinhardt G PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e99942.

PMID: 24955959 PMC: 4067275. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099942.

References

Thoma V, Hummel J, Davidoff J . Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004; 30(2):257-67. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.257. View

Gauthier I, Tarr M . Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002; 28(2):431-46. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.28.2.431. View

Abecassis M, Sera M, Yonas A, Schwade J . What's in a shape? Children represent shape variability differently than adults when naming objects. J Exp Child Psychol. 2001; 78(3):213-39. DOI: 10.1006/jecp.2000.2573. View

Scherf K, Behrmann M, Kimchi R, Luna B . Emergence of global shape processing continues through adolescence. Child Dev. 2009; 80(1):162-77. PMC: 2648130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01252.x. View

Rossion B, Pourtois G . Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: the role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception. 2004; 33(2):217-36. DOI: 10.1068/p5117. View

Juttner M, Muller A, Rentschler I . A developmental dissociation of view-dependent and view-invariant object recognition in adolescence. Behav Brain Res. 2006; 175(2):420-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.09.005. View

Hummel J, Biederman I . Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(3):480-517. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.3.480. View

Kovacs I . Human development of perceptual organization. Vision Res. 2000; 40(10-12):1301-10. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00055-9. View

Akhtar N, Enns J . Relations between covert orienting and filtering in the development of visual attention. J Exp Child Psychol. 1989; 48(2):315-34. DOI: 10.1016/0022-0965(89)90008-8. View

10.

EIMAS P, Quinn P . Studies on the formation of perceptually based basic-level categories in young infants. Child Dev. 1994; 65(3):903-17. View

11.

Poggio T, Edelman S . A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature. 1990; 343(6255):263-6. DOI: 10.1038/343263a0. View

12.

Bartram D . Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks. Mem Cognit. 2011; 4(5):593-602. DOI: 10.3758/BF03213223. View

13.

Smith L, Jones S, Landau B . Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism?. Cognition. 1996; 60(2):143-71. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)00709-3. View

14.

Ellis R, Allport D, Humphreys G, Collis J . Varieties of object constancy. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1989; 41(4):775-96. DOI: 10.1080/14640748908402393. View

15.

Haaf R, Fulkerson A, Jablonski B, Hupp J, Shull S, Pescara-Kovach L . Object recognition and attention to object components by preschool children and 4-month-old infants. J Exp Child Psychol. 2003; 86(2):108-23. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-0965(03)00108-5. View

16.

Tarr M, Bulthoff H . Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995; 21(6):1494-505. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.6.1494. View

17.

Tarr M, Cheng Y . Learning to see faces and objects. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(1):23-30. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00010-4. View

18.

Snodgrass J, Vanderwart M . A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980; 6(2):174-215. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.6.2.174. View

19.

Day M . Visual search by children: the effect of background variation and the use of visual cues. J Exp Child Psychol. 1978; 25(1):1-16. DOI: 10.1016/0022-0965(78)90034-6. View

20.

Biederman I . Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev. 1987; 94(2):115-147. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115. View