Object Modification Psychology

Perception

Abstract The experiment was designed to investigate the models proposed by Humphreys, Riddoch and Quinlan (1988) in respect of visual object processing. The experiment was based on the premis that participants would take longer to name visually presented objects whose characteristics were structurally similar compared to structurally distinct. We did not find evidence to support the cascade or sequential models for visually presented object naming.

Introduction
This investigation aims to repeat work carried out by Humphreys, Riddoch and Quinlan (1988) on the distinctions made in visual recognition and naming of real objects. These researchers suggest that real objects can be classified via visual characteristics.
began with the no interactive sequential model. This model proposed that information from an object when first presented for naming would consist of firstly its structural characteristics, then semantics of the object and finally its name. Different studies have shown that information about an object, such as its name only become available when earlier processing stages are complete (e.g. Potter and Faulconer, 1975; Riddoch and Humphreys,1988). Potter and Faulconer (1975) showed that participants can access information(semantic) relevant to an objects category much faster than its name. This is considered to be evidence to support a multistage model for object recognition. This sequential model has discrete stages. However this model does not explain a finding from neuropsychology patients. Accounts from Humphreys et al. patients found that some had selective impairment of object naming. They had more difficulty with some objects compared to others. Humphreys therefore suggested an alteration to the model in order to account for this. They say that there are broadly two groups to which all real object belong. Those with a visual prototype whose members are structurally similar visually, and those without a visual prototype, whose members are structurally distinct. The implication of these categories suggests that naming object from the SS group will be slower than those of the structurally distinct group.
Hypothesis 2
Participants will take less time to name items from structurally distinct categories than from those in structurally similar categories ( re model proposed by Humphreys, Riddoch and Quinlan,1988). However this should only be true of the pictures since all written words are structurally distinct.

Hypothesis 3
Participants will take more time to name structurally similar objects when they are presented as pictures. The different structural categories will show no differences when presented as words. As shown by Humphreys et al. (1988) the cascade model predicts that visual characteristic interact to produce naming latency for SS categories.

Method

Design
We have used a 2x2 related measures design.
The first independent variable was the form that he stimulus was presented in e.g. words and pictures (stimulus format). The second independent variable was the structural category the object belongs to i.e. structurally similar (SS) or structurally distinct (SD) (structure