de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Categorisation of dynamic objects

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83985

Huber,  SA
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84426

Newell,  FN
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84298

Wallraven,  C
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Huber, S., Newell, F., & Wallraven, C. (2001). Categorisation of dynamic objects. Poster presented at Twenty-fourth European Conference on Visual Perception, Kusadasi, Turkey.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-E22C-6
Abstract
We investigated the role of static and dynamic object properties in a categorisation task. The question was whether dynamic properties can be used to the same extent as static properties. Sixteen participants were presented with computer-generated objects varying systematically in four attributes. The static attributes were 3-D shape and colour, and the dynamic attributes were path on a 2-D plane and motion pattern (eg rotating, swinging). In the learning phase, participants were instructed to learn two categories via feedback from a sample of six objects consisting of two prototypes, two objects with one static and two objects with one dynamic cue from the other category. In the test phase, participants had to categorise objects from a new sample of eight objects with four objects having one attribute from the other prototype and four objects with two attributes from each prototype. Overall, participants used both static and dynamic cues for categorisation, showing no bias towards one or the other. There was, however, a significant bias towards the type of action used, showing that subjects paid more attention to motion pattern than to the path. Our results are discussed with emphasis on the relative importance of static and dynamic cues in object categorisation.