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.
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. They propose a distinction in categories with members whose characteristics are structurally similar (SS) in one group and those whose characteristics are structurally distinct (SD) in another group. It is suggested that the way these types of objects are recognised implies differences in the recognition process itself. And therefore we can provide evidence for the theory that object naming involves a more complex cascade model than the initial theory they proposed, that of non-interactive sequential processing. Models of object naming suggested by Humphreys et al. 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document