↓ Skip to main content

Square bananas, blue horses: the relative weight of shape and color in concept recognition and representation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Square bananas, blue horses: the relative weight of shape and color in concept recognition and representation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01542
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Scorolli, Anna M. Borghi

Abstract

The present study investigates the role that shape and color play in the representation of animate (i.e., animals) and inanimate manipulable entities (i.e., fruits), and how the importance of these features is modulated by different tasks. Across three experiments participants were shown either images of entities (e.g., a sheep or a pineapple) or images of the same entities modified in color (e.g., a blue pineapple) or in shape (e.g., an elongated pineapple). In Experiment 1 we asked participants to categorize the entities as fruit or animal. Results showed that with animals color does not matter, while shape modifications determined a deterioration of the performance - stronger for fruit than for animals. To better understand our findings, in Experiments 2 we asked participants to judge if entities were graspable (manipulation evaluation task). Participants were faster with manipulable entities (fruit) than with animals; moreover alterations in shape affected the response latencies more for animals than for fruit. In Experiment 3 (motion evaluation task), we replicated the disadvantage for shape-altered animals, while with fruits shape and color modifications produced no effect. By contrasting shape- and color- alterations the present findings provide information on shape/color relative weight, suggesting that the action based property of shape is more crucial than color for fruit categorization, while with animals it is critical for both manipulation and motion tasks. This contextual dependency is further revealed by explicit judgments on similarity - between the altered entities and the prototypical ones - provided after the different tasks. These results extend current literature on affordances and biofunctionally embodied understanding, revealing the relative robustness of biofunctional activity compared to intellectual one.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 19 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 48%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,957,299
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,158
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,068
of 278,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#284
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.