↓ Skip to main content

Object Categorization in Finer Levels Relies More on Higher Spatial Frequencies and Takes Longer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Object Categorization in Finer Levels Relies More on Higher Spatial Frequencies and Takes Longer
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matin N. Ashtiani, Saeed R. Kheradpisheh, Timothée Masquelier, Mohammad Ganjtabesh

Abstract

The human visual system contains a hierarchical sequence of modules that take part in visual perception at different levels of abstraction, i.e., superordinate, basic, and subordinate levels. One important question is to identify the "entry" level at which the visual representation is commenced in the process of object recognition. For a long time, it was believed that the basic level had a temporal advantage over two others. This claim has been challenged recently. Here we used a series of psychophysics experiments, based on a rapid presentation paradigm, as well as two computational models, with bandpass filtered images of five object classes to study the processing order of the categorization levels. In these experiments, we investigated the type of visual information required for categorizing objects in each level by varying the spatial frequency bands of the input image. The results of our psychophysics experiments and computational models are consistent. They indicate that the different spatial frequency information had different effects on object categorization in each level. In the absence of high frequency information, subordinate and basic level categorization are performed less accurately, while the superordinate level is performed well. This means that low frequency information is sufficient for superordinate level, but not for the basic and subordinate levels. These finer levels rely more on high frequency information, which appears to take longer to be processed, leading to longer reaction times. Finally, to avoid the ceiling effect, we evaluated the robustness of the results by adding different amounts of noise to the input images and repeating the experiments. As expected, the categorization accuracy decreased and the reaction time increased significantly, but the trends were the same. This shows that our results are not due to a ceiling effect. The compatibility between our psychophysical and computational results suggests that the temporal advantage of the superordinate (resp. basic) level to basic (resp. subordinate) level is mainly due to the computational constraints (the visual system processes higher spatial frequencies more slowly, and categorization in finer levels depends more on these higher spatial frequencies).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 27%
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Neuroscience 6 18%
Engineering 4 12%
Computer Science 4 12%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,884,576
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,659
of 30,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,515
of 316,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#435
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.