Skip to main content
Log in

Banana or fruit? Detection and recognition across categorical levels in RSVP

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pictured objects and scenes can be understood in a brief glimpse, but there is a debate about whether they are first encoded at the basic level (e.g., banana), as proposed by Rosch et al. (1976, Cognitive Psychology) , or at a superordinate level (e.g., fruit). The level at which we first categorize an object matters in everyday situations because it determines whether we approach, avoid, or ignore the object. In the present study, we limited stimulus duration in order to explore the earliest level of object understanding. Target objects were presented among five other pictures using RSVP at 80, 53, 27, or 13 ms/picture. On each trial, participants viewed or heard 1 of 28 superordinate names or a corresponding basic-level name of the target. The name appeared before or after the picture sequence. Detection (as d′) improved as duration increased but was significantly above chance in all conditions and for all durations. When the name was given before the sequence, d′ was higher for the basic than for the superordinate name, showing that specific advance information facilitated visual encoding. In the name-after group, performance on the two category levels did not differ significantly; this suggests that encoding had occurred at the basic level during presentation, allowing the superordinate category to be inferred. We interpret the results as being consistent with the claim that the basic level is usually the entry level for object perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig.3
Fig.4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

  • Crowder, R. G. (1986). Auditory and temporal factors in the modality effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 268–278. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.2.268

  • Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2005). Perception of objects in natural scenes: Is it really attention free? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1476–1492. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: As soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychological Science, 16(2), 152–160. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00796.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46–51. doi:10.3758/BF03203619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 243–275. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(84)90009-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macé, M. J.-M., Joubert, O. R., Nespoulous, J.-L., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2009). The time-course of visual categorizations: You spot the animal faster than the bird. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e5927. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005927

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, M. L., Gauthier, I., Sadr, J., & Palmeri, T. J. (2008). Object detection and basic-level categorization: Sometimes you know it is there before you know what it is. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 28–35. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poncet, M., Reddy, L., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2012). Presentation time does not affect superordinate-level advantage in ultra-rapid categorization, poster presented at the 11th VSS conference. Florida: Naples.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C., & Faulconer, B. A. (1975). Time to understand pictures and words. Nature, 253, 437–438. doi:10.1038/253437a0

  • Potter, M. C., Wyble, B., Pandav, R., & Olejarczyk, J. (2010). Picture detection in rapid serial visual presentation: Features or identity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1486–1494. doi:10.1037/a0018730

  • Potter, M. C., Wyble, B., Hagmann, C. E., & McCourt, E. S. (2014). Detecting meaning in RSVP at 13ms per picture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(2), 270–279. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0605-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, T. T., & Patterson, K. (2007). Object categorization: Reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X

  • Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 457–482. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90016-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health Grant MH47432.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C. Potter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Potter, M.C., Hagmann, C.E. Banana or fruit? Detection and recognition across categorical levels in RSVP. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 578–585 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0692-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0692-4

Keywords

Navigation