Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23263625›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2013

Exploiting object constancy: effects of active exploration and shape morphing on similarity judgments of novel objects.

Haemy Lee, Christian Wallraven

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Haemy LeeDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Cognitive Systems Lab, Korea University, Anam-Dong 5ga, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-713, Korea.
Christian Wallraven

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans are experts at shape processing. This expertise has been learned and fine tuned by actively manipulating and perceiving thousands of objects during development. Therefore, shape processing possesses an active component and a perceptual component. Here, we investigate both components in six experiments in which participants view and/or interact with novel, parametrically defined 3D objects using a touch-screen interface. For probing shape processing, we use a similarity rating task. In Experiments 1-3, we show that active manipulation leads to a better perceptual reconstruction of the physical parameter space than judging rotating objects, or passively viewing someone else's exploration pattern. In Experiment 4, we exploit object constancy-the fact that the visual system assumes that objects do not change their identity during manipulation. We show that slow morphing of an object during active manipulation systematically biases similarity ratings-despite the participants being unaware of the morphing. Experiments 5 and 6 investigate the time course of integrating shape information by restricting the morphing to the first and second half of the trial only. Interestingly, the results indicate that participants do not seem to integrate shape information beyond 5 s of exploration time. Finally, Experiment 7 uses a secondary task that suggests that the previous results are not simply due to lack of attention during the later parts of the trial. In summary, our results demonstrate the advantage of active manipulation for shape processing and indicate a continued, perceptual integration of complex shape information within a time window of a few seconds during object interactions.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionExploratory BehaviorForm PerceptionHumansJudgmentPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationRecognition, PsychologyRotation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.