Learning to detect and combine the features of an object

Jordan W. Suchow, Denis G. Pelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

To recognize an object, it is widely supposed that we first detect and then combine its features. Familiar objects are recognized effortlessly, but unfamiliar objects - like new faces or foreign-language letters - are hard to distinguish and must be learned through practice. Here, we describe a method that separates detection and combination and reveals how each improves as the observer learns. We dissociate the steps by two independent manipulations: For each step, we do or do not provide a bionic crutch that performs it optimally. Thus, the two steps may be performed solely by the human, solely by the crutches, or cooperatively, when the human takes one step and a crutch takes the other. The crutches reveal a double dissociation between detecting and combining. Relative to the two-step ideal, the human observer's overall efficiency for unconstrained identification equals the product of the efficiencies with which the human performs the steps separately. The two-step strategy is inefficient: Constraining the ideal to take two steps roughly halves its identification efficiency. In contrast, we find that humans constrained to take two steps perform just as well as when unconstrained, which suggests that they normally take two steps. Measuring threshold contrast (the faintness of a barely identifiable letter) as it improves with practice, we find that detection is inefficient and learned slowly. Combining is learned at a rate that is 4x higher and, after 1,000 trials, 7x more efficient. This difference explains much of the diversity of rates reported in perceptual learning studies, including effects of complexity and familiarity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)785-790
Number of pages6
JournalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Volume110
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 8 2013

Fingerprint

Crutches
Learning
Efficiency
Bionics
Language
Practice (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Letter identification
  • Object recognition
  • Sensitivity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Cite this

Learning to detect and combine the features of an object. / Suchow, Jordan W.; Pelli, Denis G.

In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 110, No. 2, 08.01.2013, p. 785-790.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b46c137428aa46de873ff694da7d8194,
title = "Learning to detect and combine the features of an object",
abstract = "To recognize an object, it is widely supposed that we first detect and then combine its features. Familiar objects are recognized effortlessly, but unfamiliar objects - like new faces or foreign-language letters - are hard to distinguish and must be learned through practice. Here, we describe a method that separates detection and combination and reveals how each improves as the observer learns. We dissociate the steps by two independent manipulations: For each step, we do or do not provide a bionic crutch that performs it optimally. Thus, the two steps may be performed solely by the human, solely by the crutches, or cooperatively, when the human takes one step and a crutch takes the other. The crutches reveal a double dissociation between detecting and combining. Relative to the two-step ideal, the human observer's overall efficiency for unconstrained identification equals the product of the efficiencies with which the human performs the steps separately. The two-step strategy is inefficient: Constraining the ideal to take two steps roughly halves its identification efficiency. In contrast, we find that humans constrained to take two steps perform just as well as when unconstrained, which suggests that they normally take two steps. Measuring threshold contrast (the faintness of a barely identifiable letter) as it improves with practice, we find that detection is inefficient and learned slowly. Combining is learned at a rate that is 4x higher and, after 1,000 trials, 7x more efficient. This difference explains much of the diversity of rates reported in perceptual learning studies, including effects of complexity and familiarity.",
keywords = "Letter identification, Object recognition, Sensitivity",
author = "Suchow, {Jordan W.} and Pelli, {Denis G.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1073/pnas.1218438110",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "785--790",
journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America",
issn = "0027-8424",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning to detect and combine the features of an object

AU - Suchow, Jordan W.

AU - Pelli, Denis G.

PY - 2013/1/8

Y1 - 2013/1/8

N2 - To recognize an object, it is widely supposed that we first detect and then combine its features. Familiar objects are recognized effortlessly, but unfamiliar objects - like new faces or foreign-language letters - are hard to distinguish and must be learned through practice. Here, we describe a method that separates detection and combination and reveals how each improves as the observer learns. We dissociate the steps by two independent manipulations: For each step, we do or do not provide a bionic crutch that performs it optimally. Thus, the two steps may be performed solely by the human, solely by the crutches, or cooperatively, when the human takes one step and a crutch takes the other. The crutches reveal a double dissociation between detecting and combining. Relative to the two-step ideal, the human observer's overall efficiency for unconstrained identification equals the product of the efficiencies with which the human performs the steps separately. The two-step strategy is inefficient: Constraining the ideal to take two steps roughly halves its identification efficiency. In contrast, we find that humans constrained to take two steps perform just as well as when unconstrained, which suggests that they normally take two steps. Measuring threshold contrast (the faintness of a barely identifiable letter) as it improves with practice, we find that detection is inefficient and learned slowly. Combining is learned at a rate that is 4x higher and, after 1,000 trials, 7x more efficient. This difference explains much of the diversity of rates reported in perceptual learning studies, including effects of complexity and familiarity.

AB - To recognize an object, it is widely supposed that we first detect and then combine its features. Familiar objects are recognized effortlessly, but unfamiliar objects - like new faces or foreign-language letters - are hard to distinguish and must be learned through practice. Here, we describe a method that separates detection and combination and reveals how each improves as the observer learns. We dissociate the steps by two independent manipulations: For each step, we do or do not provide a bionic crutch that performs it optimally. Thus, the two steps may be performed solely by the human, solely by the crutches, or cooperatively, when the human takes one step and a crutch takes the other. The crutches reveal a double dissociation between detecting and combining. Relative to the two-step ideal, the human observer's overall efficiency for unconstrained identification equals the product of the efficiencies with which the human performs the steps separately. The two-step strategy is inefficient: Constraining the ideal to take two steps roughly halves its identification efficiency. In contrast, we find that humans constrained to take two steps perform just as well as when unconstrained, which suggests that they normally take two steps. Measuring threshold contrast (the faintness of a barely identifiable letter) as it improves with practice, we find that detection is inefficient and learned slowly. Combining is learned at a rate that is 4x higher and, after 1,000 trials, 7x more efficient. This difference explains much of the diversity of rates reported in perceptual learning studies, including effects of complexity and familiarity.

KW - Letter identification

KW - Object recognition

KW - Sensitivity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872174006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872174006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1218438110

DO - 10.1073/pnas.1218438110

M3 - Article

VL - 110

SP - 785

EP - 790

JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

SN - 0027-8424

IS - 2

ER -