#/media/ Failing that, as it’s a fairly standard 4D shape, can this be recreated using the in. They create the machine manipulatable file from which not only the abstracts and index journals are derived, but the machine readable file is also the source of. Nonresidential construction, ° o • 29 most active States This manipulatable file is the Census Bureau’s first attempt to measure this activity by state.
|Published (Last):||23 January 2015|
|PDF File Size:||17.6 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.89 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Previous research has shown that photographs of manipulable objects i. The same objects were presented as photographs and line-drawings during a speeded naming task. Forty-six participants named objects depicted in both formats. A significant object depiction photographs versus line drawing by manipulability interaction confirmed our hypothesis that manipulable objects are identified more quickly when shown as photographs; whereas, non-manipulable objects are identified equally quickly when shown as photographs versus line-drawings.
The theory of embodied cognition has increasingly gained support in explaining much of human cognition over the last decade for a recent review, see Borghi and Pecher, manioulatable A prediction of this theory is that the same neural substrate activated when perceiving an object is also used to represent or form a memory of the object.
This raises interesting questions about the differences in representations between objects maniipulatable regularly use and pick up i. There is abundant neuropsychological e.
Importantly, we have recently shown that photographs of manipulable objects i. Importantly, in that study, photographs of objects were used. In the current research we investigate whether the type of depiction of the object influences the extent to which manipulability effects are observed. Specifically, line-drawings depict a more simplified and basic-features version of the object, and are generally reduced in the intensity and quality of surface details, texture, shading, and 3-D visual cues.
In the present experiment we investigate whether line-drawings activate embodied object representations to the same degree as more realistic photographic depictions.
The Snodgrass and Vanderwart standardized set of line-drawings has been commonly used for many studies of object recognition. It is assumed that manipuulatable line-drawings is equivalent to processing more realistic depictions of the objects, such as photographs or 3-D, real objects. However, this assumption amnipulatable be invalid for certain kinds of behaviors e. In particular, manipulable objects, defined as manipulatablf objects we can pick up and use with one hand, have certain visual properties that indicate manipulability.
In the ot of tools this could simply be manipulatanle presence of a handle; in the case of fruits and vegetables some kind of roundness or elongation that affords 1 a place manipultaable grasp the object.
If detecting these properties i. Most object-recognition research in the past has focused on the role of color as opposed to surface detail of objects Brodie et al.
Specific evidence that the quality of object depiction is important comes in part from research showing that object naming is facilitated by both congruent surface color i.
Price and Humphreys, For instance, Nicholson and Humphrey reported that additional surface cues to object depictions reduced the latency to name rotated objects, indicating the importance of surface cues during an object-naming task. Additionally, Rossion and Pourtois found that the addition of texture and shading without color slightly improved naming agreement scores for the objects, but the effect of color was stronger, with the addition of color information unambiguously improving naming accuracy, and speeded correct responses times.
In the present behavioral experiment, we investigated the idea that if the object-action system and identification systems are integrated in an embodied way, one would expect faster identification of manipulable objects when more realistic depictions i. For line-drawings, information indicating manipulability would be less readily available and hence manipulable objects would lose their processing advantage during identification.
Critically this investigation was done as a within-subjects design with each participant naming the line-drawing and photographic versions of the same objects, and so serving as their own control. We hypothesized that manipulable objects would be identified more quickly when presented as photographs than as line drawings, given that surface details are a particularly important part of visually parsing out a 3-D manipulable object. This effect would appear as a two-way interaction between object depiction line-drawing versus photograph and object manipulability manipulable versus non-manipulable objects during object naming.
Seven were left-handed, and all had English as a first-language, normal, or corrected-to-normal vision, and no known history of neurological or visual disorders. Black and white photographs from the stimulus set normed by Salmon et al.
To further increase the number of objects available, a local artist Andrea Rankin, http: The result was a total of objects that were depicted as both line-drawings and photographs. All stimuli were shown using the software DirectRT.
java – Trying to implement a manipulatable zip file system – failing – Stack Overflow
Photographs were 4—11 cm tall and wide with visual angles of 4. The line-drawings, on the other hand, appeared slightly smaller on the screen 2—9 cm subtending visual angles between 2. It could be argued that this might give the line-drawings a slight disadvantage smaller object depictions or a slight advantage more of object presented at fixation. Furthermore, it was the interaction between object depiction and manipulability that was of key interest, not the main effect of object depiction.
All participants named both the line-drawing and photographic versions of each object. Object depiction was a blocked variable such that half of the participants named the photographs first and the other half named the line drawings first i.
Prior to manipklatable block of object depiction line drawings or photographsparticipants were provided with a practice block 12 objects of objects depicted in the same way as the block i. For example, a participant would practice with line-drawings, then complete the full line-drawing block, then practice manipulatsble photographs, followed by the full photographs block.
Participants were not told that the second block would contain the same items presented in the first. Each trial was preceded by a fixation point that was displayed for 1 s. Each stimulus remained on the screen until it was named.
The experimenter was in the room throughout all stimulus presentations and coded errors using a keyboard with an extension cord that saved the data directly to the computer used for presentation.
The entire experiment took less than 1 manipulafable to complete. These analyses require aggregating the data prior to conducting fils analysis.
With each analysis, significant findings can then presumably be generalized to other subjects and items.
In cases where it is useful to generalize across both subjects and items, both analyses are conducted i. Ideally, both analyses converge on the same results. This analysis is often conducted using the lme4 package Bates, in R www. This new method for analysis of linguistic data has been advocated by other linguistic researchers e.
manipklatable First, a mixed-effects model can account for the effects of subjects and items at the same time. Second, the mankpulatable model can analyze the effect of manipulability as a continuous variable instead of a categorical variable as is the case with the ANOVA.
Finally, because there is not aggregation, mixed effects models have more statistical power than traditional analyses based on the ANOVA Baayen, Data analysis consisted of a mixed-effects analysis conducted in Rfollowed by a more traditional repeated measures ANOVA subjects analysis in SPSS to confirm that the more traditional analysis supported the findings from the mixed-effects analysis. The key variables of interest from the mixed-effects model were Block block 1 or block2Manipulability ManipDepiction photographs or line drawingand the interaction between Manipulability and Depiction.
Importantly, Manipulability was based on the first type of Manipulability ratings collected by Salmon et al. Covariate variables of AoA and familiarity Fam were filf entered into the model to ensure that significant effects were not attributable to these covariates.
Again, these were treated as continuous variables, with mean values taken from Salmon et al. To conduct the linear mixed effects analysis, both the subject error and item error accounted for by each trial were entered into the model. Likewise, the random effect item i represented each items deviation from the item group RT average. An analysis of the accuracy results was also conducted using a mixed-effects model to confirm the lack of speed-accuracy trade-off.
For simplicity, only significant effects are reported except where comparison with manpiulatable studies is warranted. Notice that Manipulability is fiel necessity treated as a categorical variable for this analysis, and that Block is now Ot, a between-subjects variable. The goal of analyzing the data with both a mixed-effects analysis and ANOVA was to demonstrate that the results obtained by the mixed-effects analysis were also supported by more-traditional RT analyses.
For the mixed-effects regression analysis, F -values were derived for each of the effects of interest. The effects were in the direction of faster RTs in block 1 compared to block 2, faster RTs for more familiar objects, and those fasters RTs for objects acquired at a younger age low AoA. In addition, the results showed that RTs were generally faster for photographs of objects as mqnipulatable to line drawings.
These results indicated that manipulable objects were named more quickly as photographs than line drawings, but there was no difference in the time to name non-manipulable objects based on object depiction line drawings versus photographs. That is, this result supported the notion that manipulable objects are more readily identified when portrayed with more realistic maniplatable detail such as that in a photograph. Importantly non-manipulable objects did not show janipulatable manipulable-object benefit.
The reaction time RT means for the two-way interaction between Depiction and Manipulability, showing larger effects of object depiction photographs versus line drawings for manipulable objects. Error bars shown indicate confidence intervals calculated according to the method described by Masson and Loftus ; see also Loftus and Masson, Thus, there was no evidence of a speed accuracy trade-off.
To confirm the results obtained with the mixed-effects regression analysis, more standard ANOVAs were conducted. A subjects-analysis was conducted, which required aggregating the same mean RTs from the previous analysis over the 46 participants. Note, that for this analysis, Manipulability was now treated as a discrete two-group variable. This was done by classifying all objects with an average Manipulability score of 3.
Thus, this ANOVA analysis, by default, had less statistical power than a mixed-effects regression for the following reasons: Therefore, the results from this analysis were consistent with that of the mixed effects analysis showing a larger effect of object depiction for manipulable objects.
A common picture arose from the three analyses described above. First, although a large main effect of manipulability was not supported by this data i. Specifically, these results indicated that for manipulable objects the effect of object depiction was much larger than it was for non-manipulable objects.
Manipulable objects presented as photographs were identified significantly more quickly than the same manipulable objects presented as line-drawings. This interaction was supported both by the linear mixed effects regression analysis, and the more traditional ANOVA.
In addition, our results suggested some advantage for identifying photographs faster than line-drawings. Consistent with our findings, previous research Price and Humphreys, has supported this advantage for naming black and white photographs over black and white line-drawings.
In this study, photographs and line-drawings of manipulable and non-manipulable objects were presented for speeded naming on a computer screen. We hypothesized that objects with motor associations i. This hypothesis was based on the idea that more realistic depictions should lead to more motor facilitation and greater activation of embodied representations that would then facilitate naming of such manipulable objects.
In support of this hypothesis, we found a significant interaction between object manipulability and object depiction photographs versus line-drawings. In other words, a manipulability effect was found for objects depicted as photographs, but not for the same objects depicted as line-drawings, such as the Snodgrass and Vanderwart set.
This interaction was supported both with a more traditional repeated-measures ANOVA analysis, and a linear mixed-effects analysis. The results were also consistent with our hypothesis that manipulable objects are identified more quickly relative to non-manipulable objects when shown as photographs due to the extra texture and surface detail afforded during identification.
These results suggest that additional surface detail and texture in photographs more completely activate embodied representations that are active during object naming. The present results are important in confirming the manipulability effect; that is, that the property of manipulability confers an advantage on object naming as observed in Salmon et al. We extend this finding by showing that this advantage is optimized with increasing visual detail such as detail present in a photograph relative to a line-drawing.