Abstract
Two experiments are reported in which participants categorized stimuli as belonging or not belonging to the category of fruits. Blocks of pictures and words were used, with items referring to exemplars having either high or low intercategory visual similarity and/or semantic relatedness. For both pictures and words, response time was longer in the semantically related conditions than in the unrelated condition. Furthermore, there was a strong effect of visual similarity for pictures but not for words when semantic relatedness was held constant: Participants took longer to classify pictures of fruits when these were mixed with visually similar vegetables than when they were mixed with visually dissimilar vegetables. Reducing the stimulus visibility by adding a dot pattern had an additive effect for words but an interactive effect for pictures. The results are explained in terms of a unique locus for category decisions about pictures and words.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boccardi, M., &Cappa, S. F. (1997). Valori normativi di produzione categoriale per la lingua italiana [Category production norms for Italian].Giornale Italiano di Psicologia,24, 425–436.
Bortolini, U., Tagliavini, C., &Zampolli, A. (1974).Lessico di frequenza della lingua italiana [Frequency norms for Italian]. Milan: Garzanti.
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., &Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions?Cognitive Neuropsychology,7, 161–189.
Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., &Parmelee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures, and priming: On semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 757–777.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language as a fixed-effect fallacy. A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 178–200.
Guenther, R. K., &Klatzky, R. L. (1977). Semantic classification of pictures and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,3, 498–514.
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., &Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification.Cognitive Neuropsychology,5, 67–103.
Jackendoff, R. (1987). On beyond zebra: The relation of linguistic and visual information.Cognition,26, 89–114.
Job, R. (1981).Giudizi di appartenenza categoriale per 547 concetti della lingua italiana [Category membership ratings for 547 concepts of the Italian language] (Rep. No. 50). Padua: University of Padua, Institute of Psychology.
Job, R., Rumiati, R., &Lotto, L. (1992). The picture superiority effect in categorization: Visual or semantic?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1019–1028.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Lotto, L. (1988). Il ruolo dell’informazione visiva nel processo di categorizzazione [The role of visual information in the categorization process]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Padua.
Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1996). Commonality and differences in similarity comparisons.Memory & Cognition,24, 235–249.
Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society: Series B,200, 269–294.
McCloskey, M. E., &Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory.Cognitive Psychology,11, 1–37.
Medin, D. L., &Shaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Morton, J., &Patterson, K. (1980). A new attempt at an interpretation, or an attempt at a new interpretation. In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.),Deep dyslexia (pp. 91–118). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1989). Further tests of an exemplar-similarity approach to relating identification and categorization.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 279–290.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification.Psychological Review,104, 266–300.
Oliva, A., &Schyns, P. G. (1997). Coarse blobs or fine edges? Evidence that information diagnosticity changes the perception of complex visual stimuli.Cognitive Psychology,34, 72–107.
Potter, M. C., &Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words.Nature,253, 437–438.
Rapp, B. C., Hillis, A. E., &Caramazza, A. (1993). The role of representations in cognitive theory: More on multiple semantics and the agnosias.Cognitive Neuropsychology,10, 235–249.
Riddoch, J., Humphreys, G. W., Coltheart, M., &Funnell, E. (1988). Semantic system or systems? Neuropsychological evidence re-examined.Cognitive Neuropsychology,5, 3–23.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., &Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour,12, 1–20.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 192–233.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sartori, G., &Job, R. (1988). The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychological study on the interaction of visual and semantic information.Cognitive Neuropsychology,5, 105–132.
Sartori, G., Job, R., &Coltheart, M. (1993). The organization of object knowledge: Evidence from neuropsychology. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.),Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 451–465). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., &Delaney, S. M. (1990). Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 5–24.
Snodgrass, J. G., &McCullough, B. (1986). The role of visual similarity in picture categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 147–154.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from MURST (40%).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lotto, L., Job, R. & Rumiati, R. Visual effects in picture and word categorization. Memory & Cognition 27, 674–684 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211561
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211561