Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations

Five classes of relations between an object and its setting can characterize the organization of objects into real-world scenes. The relations are (1) Interposition (objects interrupt their background), (2) Support (objects tend to rest on surfaces), (3) Probability (objects tend to be found in some scenes but not others), (4) Position (given an object is probable in a scene, it often is found in some positions and not others), and (5) familiar Size (objects have a limited set of size relations with other objects). In two experiments subjects viewed brief (150 msec) presentations of slides of scenes in which an object in a cued location in the scene was either in a normal relation to its background or violated from one to three of the relations. Such objects appear to (1) have the background pass through them, (2) float in air, (3) be unlikely in that particular scene, (4) be in an inappropriate position, and (5) be too large or too small relative to the other objects in the scene. In Experiment I, subjects attempted to determine whether the cued object corresponded to a target object which had been specified in advance by name. With the exception of the Interposition violation, violation costs were incurred in that the detection of objects undergoing violations was less accurate and slower than when those same objects were in normal relations to their setting. However, the detection of objects in normal relations to their setting (innocent bystanders) was unaffected by the presence of another object undergoing a violation in that same setting. This indicates that the violation costs were incurred not because of an unsuccessful elicitation of a frame or schema for the scene but because properly formed frames interfered with (or did not facilitate) the perceptibility of objects undergoing violations. As the number of violations increased, target detectability generally decreased. Thus, the relations were accessed from the results of a single fixation and were available sufficiently early during the time course of scene perception to affect the perception of the objects in the scene. Contrary to expectations from a bottom-up account of scene perception, violations of the pervasive physical relations of Support and Interposition were not more disruptive on object detection than the semantic violations of Probability, Position and Size. These are termed semantic because they require access to the referential meaning of the object. In Experiment II, subjects attempted to detect the presence of the violations themselves. Violations of the semantic relations were detected more accurately than violations of Interposition and at least as accurately as violations of Support. As the number of violations increased, the detectability of the incongruities between an object and its setting increased. These results provide converging evidence that semantic relations can be accessed from the results of a single fixation. In both experiments information about Position was accessed at least as quickly as information on Probability. Thus in Experiment I, the interference that resulted from placing a fire hydrant in a kitchen was not greater than the interference from placing it on top of a mail ? in a street scene. Similarly, violations of Probability in Experiment II were not more detectable than violations of Position. Thus, the semantic relations which were accessed included information about the detailed interactions among the objects—information which is more specific than what can be inferred from the general setting. Access to the semantic relations among the entities in a scene is not deferred until the completion of spatial and depth processing and object identification. Instead, an object's semantic relations are accessed simultaneously with its physical relations as well as with its own identification.     

Paradoxical preference for more frequently occurring negative stimuli and for less frequently occurring positive stimuli as a function of amount of training in simultaneous discrimination learning

Development of a preference for more frequently occurring negative stimuli was found in a within-subject design. In this experiment, pigeons learned two simultaneous problems with an unequal number of training trials. At various stages in training, for example, the more-trained negative stimulus was paired with the less-trained negative stimulus for a single preference trial. These probe trials pointed to a swing in stimulus function in negative stimuli which also occurred at an earlier stage in positive (reward-correlated) stimuli. The paradoxical preference for less-trained positive over more-trained positive stimuli was found in this study, confirming the earlier reported phenomenon. The paradoxical preference for more-trained negative stimuli was discussed in terms of a frustration analysis. A symmetrical, albeit positive, emotional factor was discussed with regard to the paradoxical findings with positive probe trials.     

Avoidance conditioning as a function of appetitive stimulus pretraining: Response and stimulus transfer effects

Pretrained appetitive discriminative stimuli were used as warning signals in subsequent avoidance learning. In Expt 1 identical responses were required in pretraining and in avoidance learning. An appetitive S+ facilitated avoidance learning in rats in comparison to S? or a stimulus previously uncorrelated with food. In Expt 2, the type of response in pretraining and in avoidance learning was varied. Groups with homogeneous responses in the two situations replicated Expt 1 results, whereas groups with different responses in pretraining and avoidance learning failed to show an advantage when S+ served as warning; in the heterogeneous response groups, S? was as effective as S+. Inhibitory factors in the heterogeneous groups were discussed as an explanation for these results.     

On processing chinese ideographs and english words: some implications from Stroop-Test results.

When Chinese subjects tried to name the color of characters which represented conflicting color words, they showed markedly greater interference than did English speaking readers performing an English version of the same task. This effect cannot be attributed to bilingualism among the Chinese subjects since bilinguals in other languages show smaller Stroop-interference than monolingual controls. Instead, there may be some fundamental differences in the perceptual demands of reading Chinese and English which can have widespread implications for human information processing.