Two Types of Visual Objects

• Autorzy: Błażej Skrzypulec
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

While it is widely accepted that human vision represents objects, it is less clear which of the various philosophical notions of 'object' adequately characterizes visual objects. In this paper, I show that within contemporary cognitive psychology visual objects are characterized in two distinct, incompatible ways. On the one hand, models of visual organization describe visual objects in terms of combinations of features, in accordance with the philosophical bundle theories of objects. However, models of visual persistence apply a notion of visual objects that is more similar to that endorsed in philosophical substratum theories. Here I discuss arguments that might show either that only one of the above notions of visual objects is adequate in the context of human vision, or that the category of visual objects is not uniform and contains entities properly characterized by different philosophical conceptions.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Philosophical thought; Classification of objects; Perception; Cognitive psychology

PL

Poglądy filozoficzne; Klasyfikacja obiektów; Percepcja; Psychologia poznawcza

• Czasopismo: Studia Humana
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 4(2)
• Strony: 26--38

Twórcy

autor

Błażej Skrzypulec

• Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Armstrong, D. M. 1978, Universals and Scientific Realism. Vol. I: Nominalism and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 2. Bahrami, B. 2003, "Object Property Encoding and Change Blindness in Multiple Object Tracking", Visual Cognition 10, pp. 949-963.
• 3. Carey, S., Xu, F. 2001, "Infants' Knowledge of Objects: Beyond Object Files and Object Tracking", Cognition 80(1-2), pp. 179-213.
• 4. Clark, A. 2004, "Sensing, Objects, and Awareness: Reply to Commentators", Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 563-589.
• 5. van Cleve J. (1985), Three Versions of the Bundle Theory, Philosophical Studies, 47(1), 95-107.
• 6. Cohen, J. 2004, "Objects, Places, and Perception", Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 471-495.
• 7. Denkel, A. 2000, "The Refutation of Substrata", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61(2), pp. 431-439.
• 8. Elder, J. H., Goldberg, R. M. 2002, "Ecological Statistics of Gestalt Laws for the Perceptual Organization of Contours", Journal of Vision 2(4), pp. 324-353.
• 9. Hochberg, H. 1965, "Universals, Particulars, and Predication", The Review of Metaphysics 19(1), pp. 87-102.
• 10. Hoffman, D. D., Richards, W. A. 1984, "Parts of Recognition", Cognition 18(1-3), pp. 65-96.
• 11. Hubel, D., Wiesel, T. N. 1962, "Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction and Functional Architecture in the Cat's Visual Cortex", The Journal of Physiology 160, pp. 106-154.
• 12. Hummel, J. E. (2013), Object Recognition, in D. Reisburg (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 32-46.
• 13. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A. M., Gibbs, B. J. 1992, "The Reviewing of Object Files: Object-Specific Integration of Information", Cognitive Psychology 24(2), pp. 175-219.
• 14. Keane, B. P. 2009, Visual Objects as the Referents of Early Vision: A Response to A Theory Of Sentience, in D. Dedrick, L. Trick (eds.), Computation, Cognition, and Pylyshyn, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 303-333.
• 15. Keane, B. P, Pylyshy, Z. W. 2006, "Is Motion Extrapolation Employed in Multiple Object Tracking? Tracking as a Low-Level, Non-Predictive Function", Cognitive Psychology 52(4), pp. 346-368.
• 16. Kubovy, M, Holcombe, A. O., Wagemans, J. 1998, "On the Lawfulness of Grouping by Proximity", Cognitive Psychology 35(1), pp. 71-98.
• 17. Leslie, A. M., Xu, F., Tremoulet, P. D., Scholl, B. J. 1998, "Indexing and the Object Concept: Developing 'What' and 'Where' Systems", Trends in Cognitive Science 2(1), pp. 10-18.
• 18. Loux, M. J. 1978, Substance and Attribute. A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• 19. Lowe, J. E. 2000, "Lock, Martin, and Substance", The Philosophical Quarterly 50(201), pp. 499-514.
• 20. van Marle, K., Scholl, B. J. 2003, "Attentive Tracking of Objects vs. Substances", Psychological Science 14, pp. 498-504.
• 21. Marr, D. 2010, Vision. A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 22. Martin C. B. (1980), "Substance Substantiated", Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58(1), pp. 3-10.
• 23. Matthen, M. P. 2004, "Features, Places, and Things: Reflections on Austen Clarks's Theory of Sentience", Philosophical Psychology 17(4), pp. 497-518.
• 24. Mitroff, S.R., Scholl, B.J. Wynn, K. 2004, "Divide and Conquer: How Object Files Adapt When a Persisting Object Splits Into Two", Psychological Science 15, pp. 420-425.
• 25. Palmer, S. E. 1999, Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 26. Palmer, S., Rock, I. 1994, "Rethinking Perceptual Organization: The Role of Uniform Connectedness", Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1(1), pp. 29-55.
• 27. Park, W. 1990, "Haecceitas and the Bare Particular", The Review of Metaphysics 44(2), pp. 375-397.
• 28. Pomerantz, J. R., Kubovy, M. 1986, Theoretical Approaches to Perceptual Organization. Simplicity and Likelihood Principles, in K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, J. P. Thomas (eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Wiley, New York, pp. 1-46.
• 29. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1994, "Some Primitive Mechanisms of Spatial Attention", Cognition 50, pp. 363-384.
• 30. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2001, "Visual Indexes, Preconceptual Objects, and Situated Vision", Cognition 80(1), pp. 127-158.
• 31. Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007, Things and Places. How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 32. Qiu, F. T., von der Heydt, R. 2005, "Figure and Ground in the Visual Cortex: V2 Combines Stereoscopic Cues with Gestalt Rules", Neuron 47(1), pp. 155-166.
• 33. Rensink, R. A. 2000, "The Dynamic Representation of Scenes", Visual Cognition 7(1/2/3), pp. 17-42.
• 34. Russell, B. 2009, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Routledge.
• 35. Schellenberg, S. 2011, "Perceptual Content Defended", Nous 45(4), pp. 714-750.
• 36. Scholl, B. J. 2001, "Objects and Attention: The State of Art", Cognition 80(1), pp. 1-46.
• 37. Scholl, B. J. 2007, "Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology", Mind and Language 22(5), pp. 563-591.
• 38. Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1999, "Tracking Multiple Items through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood", Cognitive Psychology 38, pp. 259-290.
• 39. Simons, P. 1994, "Particulars in Particular Clothing: Three Trope Theories of Substance", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54(3), pp. 553-575.
• 40. Treisman, A. M. 1998, "Feature Binding, Attention and Object Perception", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 353(1373), pp. 1295-1306.
• 41. Ullman, S. 1996, High-Level Vision. Object Recognition and High-Level Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 42. Viswanathan, L., Mingolla, E. 2002, "Dynamics of Attention in Depth: Evidence From Multi-Element Tracking", Perception 31(12), pp. 1415-1437.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/sh-2015-0014