How Category Learning Affects Object Representations: Not All Morphspaces Stretch Alike

How does learning to categorize objects affect how people visually perceive them? Behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies have tested the degree to which category learning influences object representations, with conflicting results. Some studies have found that objects become more v...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition memory, and cognition, 2012-07, Vol.38 (4), p.807-820
Hauptverfasser: Folstein, Jonathan R, Gauthier, Isabel, Palmeri, Thomas J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 820
container_issue 4
container_start_page 807
container_title Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
container_volume 38
creator Folstein, Jonathan R
Gauthier, Isabel
Palmeri, Thomas J
description How does learning to categorize objects affect how people visually perceive them? Behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies have tested the degree to which category learning influences object representations, with conflicting results. Some studies have found that objects become more visually discriminable along dimensions relevant to previously learned categories, while others have found no such effect. One critical factor we explore here lies in the structure of the morphspaces used in different studies. Studies finding no increase in discriminability often use blended morphspaces, with morphparents lying at corners of the space. By contrast, studies finding increases in discriminability use factorial morphspaces, defined by separate morphlines forming axes of the space. Using the same 4 morphparents, we created both factorial and blended morphspaces matched in pairwise discriminability. Category learning caused a selective increase in discriminability along the relevant dimension of the factorial space, but not in the blended space, and led to the creation of functional dimensions in the factorial space, but not in the blended space. These findings demonstrate that not all morphspaces stretch alike: Only some morphspaces support enhanced discriminability to relevant object dimensions following category learning. Our results have important implications for interpreting neuroimaging studies reporting little or no effect of category learning on object representations in the visual system: Those studies may have been limited by their use of blended morphspaces.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/a0025836
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3390763</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ992346</ericid><sourcerecordid>2725592311</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a478t-59934ac0db77bc2d19114ab6dc5316c9048b2248b24d0b1d0e23c5734e6e24143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFO3DAQhq2qqGwBqQ9QVZHogUtg7HHi-FIJrWgBrYSE4Gw5zuw2q2yc2tnCvj2JFhbaCz54Dv_nzzMaxr5wOOWA6swCiKzA_AObcI065aLIPrIJCFWkCjXus88xLmE8WHxi-0IomesMJkxe-odkanta-LBJZmRDW7eL5Hw-J9fH5KZcDjW5pS5QpLa3fe3beMj25raJdPRcD9j9z4u76WU6u_l1NT2fpVaqok8zrVFaB1WpVOlExTXn0pZ55TLkudMgi1KI8ZIVlLwCEugyhZJyEpJLPGA_tt5uXa6ockMDwTamC_XKho3xtjb_Jm392yz8X4OoQeU4CE6eBcH_WVPszaqOjprGtuTX0XAQKDQqFAN6_B-69OvQDuMNFIIELfg71Ojiuchev3XBxxhovmuZw2hT5mVhA_rt7Yg78GVDA_B1C1Co3S6-uNZaoBzff9_GtrOmixtnQ1-7hqJ5bFYGCyNNAQqfACAdoy8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1023291625</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Category Learning Affects Object Representations: Not All Morphspaces Stretch Alike</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Folstein, Jonathan R ; Gauthier, Isabel ; Palmeri, Thomas J</creator><creatorcontrib>Folstein, Jonathan R ; Gauthier, Isabel ; Palmeri, Thomas J</creatorcontrib><description>How does learning to categorize objects affect how people visually perceive them? Behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies have tested the degree to which category learning influences object representations, with conflicting results. Some studies have found that objects become more visually discriminable along dimensions relevant to previously learned categories, while others have found no such effect. One critical factor we explore here lies in the structure of the morphspaces used in different studies. Studies finding no increase in discriminability often use blended morphspaces, with morphparents lying at corners of the space. By contrast, studies finding increases in discriminability use factorial morphspaces, defined by separate morphlines forming axes of the space. Using the same 4 morphparents, we created both factorial and blended morphspaces matched in pairwise discriminability. Category learning caused a selective increase in discriminability along the relevant dimension of the factorial space, but not in the blended space, and led to the creation of functional dimensions in the factorial space, but not in the blended space. These findings demonstrate that not all morphspaces stretch alike: Only some morphspaces support enhanced discriminability to relevant object dimensions following category learning. Our results have important implications for interpreting neuroimaging studies reporting little or no effect of category learning on object representations in the visual system: Those studies may have been limited by their use of blended morphspaces.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-7393</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/a0025836</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22746950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Change ; Classification ; Classification (Cognitive Process) ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Context Effect ; Differences ; Discrimination (Psychology) - physiology ; Experimental psychology ; Female ; Geometric Concepts ; Human ; Humans ; Learning ; Learning - physiology ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Morphology ; Neurosciences ; Object Recognition ; Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology ; Perceptual Learning ; Photic Stimulation ; Pilot Projects ; Psychomotor Performance - physiology ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Stimulus Similarity ; Visual Perception ; Visual Perception - physiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2012-07, Vol.38 (4), p.807-820</ispartof><rights>2012 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2012 APA, all rights reserved</rights><rights>2012, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Jul 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a478t-59934ac0db77bc2d19114ab6dc5316c9048b2248b24d0b1d0e23c5734e6e24143</citedby><orcidid>0000-0001-7617-9797 ; 0000-0002-6249-4769</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ992346$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22746950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Folstein, Jonathan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gauthier, Isabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmeri, Thomas J</creatorcontrib><title>How Category Learning Affects Object Representations: Not All Morphspaces Stretch Alike</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><description>How does learning to categorize objects affect how people visually perceive them? Behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies have tested the degree to which category learning influences object representations, with conflicting results. Some studies have found that objects become more visually discriminable along dimensions relevant to previously learned categories, while others have found no such effect. One critical factor we explore here lies in the structure of the morphspaces used in different studies. Studies finding no increase in discriminability often use blended morphspaces, with morphparents lying at corners of the space. By contrast, studies finding increases in discriminability use factorial morphspaces, defined by separate morphlines forming axes of the space. Using the same 4 morphparents, we created both factorial and blended morphspaces matched in pairwise discriminability. Category learning caused a selective increase in discriminability along the relevant dimension of the factorial space, but not in the blended space, and led to the creation of functional dimensions in the factorial space, but not in the blended space. These findings demonstrate that not all morphspaces stretch alike: Only some morphspaces support enhanced discriminability to relevant object dimensions following category learning. Our results have important implications for interpreting neuroimaging studies reporting little or no effect of category learning on object representations in the visual system: Those studies may have been limited by their use of blended morphspaces.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Change</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Classification (Cognitive Process)</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Context Effect</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Discrimination (Psychology) - physiology</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Geometric Concepts</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Object Recognition</subject><subject>Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology</subject><subject>Perceptual Learning</subject><subject>Photic Stimulation</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Stimulus Similarity</subject><subject>Visual Perception</subject><subject>Visual Perception - physiology</subject><issn>0278-7393</issn><issn>1939-1285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFO3DAQhq2qqGwBqQ9QVZHogUtg7HHi-FIJrWgBrYSE4Gw5zuw2q2yc2tnCvj2JFhbaCz54Dv_nzzMaxr5wOOWA6swCiKzA_AObcI065aLIPrIJCFWkCjXus88xLmE8WHxi-0IomesMJkxe-odkanta-LBJZmRDW7eL5Hw-J9fH5KZcDjW5pS5QpLa3fe3beMj25raJdPRcD9j9z4u76WU6u_l1NT2fpVaqok8zrVFaB1WpVOlExTXn0pZ55TLkudMgi1KI8ZIVlLwCEugyhZJyEpJLPGA_tt5uXa6ockMDwTamC_XKho3xtjb_Jm392yz8X4OoQeU4CE6eBcH_WVPszaqOjprGtuTX0XAQKDQqFAN6_B-69OvQDuMNFIIELfg71Ojiuchev3XBxxhovmuZw2hT5mVhA_rt7Yg78GVDA_B1C1Co3S6-uNZaoBzff9_GtrOmixtnQ1-7hqJ5bFYGCyNNAQqfACAdoy8</recordid><startdate>20120701</startdate><enddate>20120701</enddate><creator>Folstein, Jonathan R</creator><creator>Gauthier, Isabel</creator><creator>Palmeri, Thomas J</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7617-9797</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6249-4769</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20120701</creationdate><title>How Category Learning Affects Object Representations</title><author>Folstein, Jonathan R ; Gauthier, Isabel ; Palmeri, Thomas J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a478t-59934ac0db77bc2d19114ab6dc5316c9048b2248b24d0b1d0e23c5734e6e24143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Change</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Classification (Cognitive Process)</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Context Effect</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Discrimination (Psychology) - physiology</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Geometric Concepts</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Object Recognition</topic><topic>Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology</topic><topic>Perceptual Learning</topic><topic>Photic Stimulation</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Stimulus Similarity</topic><topic>Visual Perception</topic><topic>Visual Perception - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Folstein, Jonathan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gauthier, Isabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palmeri, Thomas J</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Folstein, Jonathan R</au><au>Gauthier, Isabel</au><au>Palmeri, Thomas J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ992346</ericid><atitle>How Category Learning Affects Object Representations: Not All Morphspaces Stretch Alike</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><date>2012-07-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>807</spage><epage>820</epage><pages>807-820</pages><issn>0278-7393</issn><eissn>1939-1285</eissn><abstract>How does learning to categorize objects affect how people visually perceive them? Behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies have tested the degree to which category learning influences object representations, with conflicting results. Some studies have found that objects become more visually discriminable along dimensions relevant to previously learned categories, while others have found no such effect. One critical factor we explore here lies in the structure of the morphspaces used in different studies. Studies finding no increase in discriminability often use blended morphspaces, with morphparents lying at corners of the space. By contrast, studies finding increases in discriminability use factorial morphspaces, defined by separate morphlines forming axes of the space. Using the same 4 morphparents, we created both factorial and blended morphspaces matched in pairwise discriminability. Category learning caused a selective increase in discriminability along the relevant dimension of the factorial space, but not in the blended space, and led to the creation of functional dimensions in the factorial space, but not in the blended space. These findings demonstrate that not all morphspaces stretch alike: Only some morphspaces support enhanced discriminability to relevant object dimensions following category learning. Our results have important implications for interpreting neuroimaging studies reporting little or no effect of category learning on object representations in the visual system: Those studies may have been limited by their use of blended morphspaces.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>22746950</pmid><doi>10.1037/a0025836</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7617-9797</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6249-4769</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0278-7393
ispartof Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2012-07, Vol.38 (4), p.807-820
issn 0278-7393
1939-1285
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3390763
source MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Adult
Change
Classification
Classification (Cognitive Process)
Cognition & reasoning
Context Effect
Differences
Discrimination (Psychology) - physiology
Experimental psychology
Female
Geometric Concepts
Human
Humans
Learning
Learning - physiology
Male
Medical imaging
Morphology
Neurosciences
Object Recognition
Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology
Perceptual Learning
Photic Stimulation
Pilot Projects
Psychomotor Performance - physiology
Reaction Time - physiology
Stimulus Similarity
Visual Perception
Visual Perception - physiology
title How Category Learning Affects Object Representations: Not All Morphspaces Stretch Alike
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T11%3A56%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20Category%20Learning%20Affects%20Object%20Representations:%20Not%20All%20Morphspaces%20Stretch%20Alike&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Learning,%20memory,%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Folstein,%20Jonathan%20R&rft.date=2012-07-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=807&rft.epage=820&rft.pages=807-820&rft.issn=0278-7393&rft.eissn=1939-1285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/a0025836&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2725592311%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1023291625&rft_id=info:pmid/22746950&rft_ericid=EJ992346&rfr_iscdi=true