Contents
Academic literature on the topic '- different object task'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic '- different object task.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "- different object task"
1
Barrett, Maeve M., and Fiona N. Newell. "Developmental processes in audiovisual object recognition and object location." Seeing and Perceiving 25 (2012): 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187847612x646604.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigated whether performance in recognising and locating target objects benefited from the simultaneous presentation of a crossmodal cue. Furthermore, we examined whether these ‘what’ and ‘where’ tasks were affected by developmental processes by testing across different age groups. Using the same set of stimuli, participants conducted either an object recognition task, or object location task. For the recognition task, participants were required to respond to two of four target objects (animals) and withhold response to the remaining two objects. For the location task, participants responded when an object occupied either of two target locations and withheld response if the object occupied a different location. Target stimuli were presented either by vision alone, audition alone, or bimodally. In both tasks cross-modal cues were either congruent or incongruent. The results revealed that response time performance in both the object recognition task and in the object location task benefited from the presence of a congruent cross-modal cue, relative to incongruent or unisensory conditions. In the younger adult group, the effect was strongest for response times although the same pattern was found for accuracy in the object location task but not for the recognition task. Following recent studies on multisensory integration in children (e.g., Brandwein, 2010; Gori, 2008), we then tested performance in children (i.e., 8–14 year olds) using the same task. Although overall performance was affected by age, our findings suggest interesting parallels in the benefit of congruent, cross-modal cues between children and adults, for both object recognition and location tasks.
2
Tyler, L. K., E. A. Stamatakis, P. Bright, et al. "Processing Objects at Different Levels of Specificity." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16, no. 3 (2004): 351–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892904322926692.
Full textAbstract:
How objects are represented and processed in the brain is a central topic in cognitive neuroscience. Previous studies have shown that knowledge of objects is represented in a featurebased distributed neural system primarily involving occipital and temporal cortical regions. Research with nonhuman primates suggest that these features are structured in a hierarchical system with posterior neurons in the inferior temporal cortex representing simple features and anterior neurons in the perirhinal cortex representing complex conjunctions of features (Bussey & Saksida, 2002; Murray & Bussey, 1999). On this account, the perirhinal cortex plays a crucial role in object identification by integrating information from different sensory systems into more complex polymodal feature conjunctions. We tested the implications of these claims for human object processing in an event-related fMRI study in which we presented colored pictures of common objects for 19 subjects to name at two levels of specificity-basic and domain. We reasoned that domain-level naming requires access to a coarsergrained representation of objects, thus involving only posterior regions of the inferior temporal cortex. In contrast, basic-level naming requires finer-grained discrimination to differentiate between similar objects, and thus should involve anterior temporal regions, including the perirhinal cortex. We found that object processing always activated the fusiform gyrus bilaterally, irrespective of the task, whereas the perirhinal cortex was only activated when the task required finer-grained discriminations. These results suggest that the same kind of hierarchical structure, which has been proposed for object processing in the monkey temporal cortex, functions in the human.
3
Quaney, Barbara M., Randolph J. Nudo, and Kelly J. Cole. "Can Internal Models of Objects be Utilized for Different Prehension Tasks?" Journal of Neurophysiology 93, no. 4 (2005): 2021–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00599.2004.
Full textAbstract:
We examined if object information obtained during one prehension task is used to produce fingertip forces for handling the same object in a different prehension task. Our observations address the task specificity of the internal models presumed to issue commands for grasping and transporting objects. Two groups participated in a 2-day experiment in which they lifted a novel object (230 g; 1.2 g/cm3). On Day One, the high force group (HFG) lifted the object by applying 10 N of grip force prior to applying vertical lift force. This disrupted the usual coordination of grip and lift forces and represented a higher grip force than necessary. The self-selected force group (SSFG) lifted the object on Day One with no instructions regarding their grip or lift forces. They first generated grip forces of 5.8 N, which decreased to 2.6 N by the 10th lift. Four hours later, they lifted the same object in the manner of the HFG. On Day Two, both groups lifted the same object “naturally and comfortably” with the opposite hand. The SSFG began Day Two using a grip force of 2.5 N, consistent with the acquisition of an accurate object representation during Day One. The HFG began Day Two using accurately scaled lift forces, but produced grip forces that virtually replicated those of the SSFG on Day One. We concur with recent suggestions that separate, independently adapted internal models produce grip and lift commands. The object representation that scaled lift force was not available to scale grip force. Furthermore, the concept of a general-purpose object representation that is available across prehension tasks was not supported.
4
Mecklinger, A., and N. Müller. "Dissociations in the Processing of “What” and “Where” Information in Working Memory: An Event-Related Potential Analysis." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8, no. 5 (1996): 453–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.5.453.
Full textAbstract:
Based on recent research that suggests that the processing of spatial and object information in the primate brain involves functionally and anatomically different systems, we examined whether the encoding and retention of object and spatial information in working memory are associated with different ERP components. In a study-test procedure subjects were asked to either remember simple geometric objects presented in a 4 by 4 spatial matrix irrespective of their position (object memory task) or to remember spatial positions of the objects irrespective of their forms (spatial memory task). The EEG was recorded from 13 electrodes during the study phase and the test phase. Recognition performance (reaction time and accuracy) was not different for the two memory tasks. PCA analyses suggest that the same four ERP components are evoked in the study phase by both tasks, which could be identified as N100, P200, P300, and slow wave. ERPs started to differ as a function of memory task 225 msec after stimulus onset at the posterior recording sites: An occipital maximal P200 component, lateralized to the right posterior temporal recording site, was observed for the object memory but not for the spatial memory task. Between-tasks differences were also obtained for P300 scalp distribution. Moreover, ERPs evoked by objects that were remembered later were more positive than ERPs to objects that were not remembered, starting at 400 msec postsimulus. The PCA analysis suggest that P300 and a slow wave following P300 at the frontal recordings contribute to these differences. A similar differential effect was not found between positions remembered or not remembered later. Post hoc analyses revealed that the absence of such effects in the spatial memory task could be due to less elaborated mnemonic strategies used in the spatial task compared to the object memory task. In the face of two additional behavioral experiments showing that subjects exclusively encode object features in the object memory task and spatial stimulus features in the spatial memory task, the present data provide evidence that encoding and rehearsal of object and spatial information in working memory are subserved by functionally and anatomically different subsystems.
5
Proud, Keaton, James B. Heald, James N. Ingram, Jason P. Gallivan, Daniel M. Wolpert, and J. Randall Flanagan. "Separate motor memories are formed when controlling different implicitly specified locations on a tool." Journal of Neurophysiology 121, no. 4 (2019): 1342–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00526.2018.
Full textAbstract:
Skillful manipulation requires forming and recalling memories of the dynamics of objects linking applied force to motion. It has been assumed that such memories are associated with entire objects. However, we often control different locations on an object, and these locations may be associated with different dynamics. We have previously demonstrated that multiple memories can be formed when participants are explicitly instructed to control different visual points marked on an object. A key question is whether this novel finding generalizes to more natural situations in which control points are implicitly defined by the task. To answer this question, we used objects with no explicit control points and tasks designed to encourage the use of distinct implicit control points. Participants moved a handle, attached to a robotic interface, to control the position of a rectangular object (“eraser”) in the horizontal plane. Participants were required to move the eraser straight ahead to wipe away a column of dots (“dust”), located to either the left or right. We found that participants adapted to opposing dynamics when linked to the left and right dust locations, even though the movements required for these two contexts were the same. Control conditions showed this learning could not be accounted for by contextual cues or the fact that the task goal required moving in a straight line. These results suggest that people naturally control different locations on manipulated objects depending on the task context and that doing so affords the formation of separate motor memories. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Skilled manipulation requires forming motor memories of object dynamics, which have been assumed to be associated with entire objects. However, we recently demonstrated that people can form multiple memories when explicitly instructed to control different visual points on an object. In this article we show that this novel finding generalizes to more natural situations in which control points are implicitly defined by the task.
6
Kitayama, Shinobu, Sean Duffy, Tadashi Kawamura, and Jeff T. Larsen. "Perceiving an Object and Its Context in Different Cultures." Psychological Science 14, no. 3 (2003): 201–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02432.
Full textAbstract:
In two studies, a newly devised test (framed-line test) was used to examine the hypothesis that individuals engaging in Asian cultures are more capable of incorporating contextual information and those engaging in North American cultures are more capable of ignoring contextual information. On each trial, participants were presented with a square frame, within which was printed a vertical line. Participants were then shown another square frame of the same or different size and asked to draw a line that was identical to the first line in either absolute length (absolute task) or proportion to the height of the surrounding frame (relative task). The results supported the hypothesis: Whereas Japanese were more accurate in the relative task, Americans were more accurate in the absolute task. Moreover, when engaging in another culture, individuals tended to show the cognitive characteristic common in the host culture.
7
Soans, Melisa Andrea. "Review on Different Methods for Real Time Object Detection for Visually Impaired." International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology 10, no. 4 (2022): 3414–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.41438.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: Real-time object detection is the task of doing object detection in real-time with fast inference while main- taining a base level of accuracy. Real time object detection helps the visually impaired detect the objects around them. Object detection can be done using different models such as the yolov3 model and the ssd mobilenet model. This paper aims to review and analyze the implementation and performance of various methodologies for real time object detection which will help the visually impaired. Each technique has its advantages and limitations. This paper helps in the review of different methods and help in selecting the best method for object detection.
8
Şık, Ayhan, Petra van Nieuwehuyzen, Jos Prickaerts, and Arjan Blokland. "Performance of different mouse strains in an object recognition task." Behavioural Brain Research 147, no. 1-2 (2003): 49–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4328(03)00117-7.
Full text
9
Tinguria, Ajay, and R. Sudhakar. "Extracting Task Designs Using Fuzzy and Neuro-Fuzzy Approaches." International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing 11, no. 7 (2022): 72–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.47760/ijcsmc.2022.v11i07.007.
Full textAbstract:
Several applications generate large volumes of data on movements including vehicle navigation, fleet management, wildlife tracking and in the near future cell phone tracking. Such applications require support to manage the growing volumes of movement data. Understanding how an object moves in space and time is fundamental to the development of an appropriate movement model of the object. Many objects are dynamic and their positions change with time. The ability to reason about the changing positions of moving objects over time thus becomes crucial. Explanations on movements of an object require descriptions of the patterns they exhibit over space and time. Every moving object exhibits a wide range of patterns some of which repeat but not exactly over space and time such as an animal foraging or a delivery truck moving about a city. Even though movement patterns are not exactly the same, they are not completely different. Moving objects may move on the same or nearly similar paths and visit the same locations over time. In this paper we discuss some technique of fuzzy approaches.
10
Müller, Dagmar, István Winkler, Urte Roeber, Susann Schaffer, István Czigler, and Erich Schröger. "Visual Object Representations Can Be Formed outside the Focus of Voluntary Attention: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials." Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, no. 6 (2010): 1179–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21271.
Full textAbstract:
There is an ongoing debate whether visual object representations can be formed outside the focus of voluntary attention. Recently, implicit behavioral measures suggested that grouping processes can occur for task-irrelevant visual stimuli, thus supporting theories of preattentive object formation (e.g., Lamy, D., Segal, H., & Ruderman, L. Grouping does not require attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 17–31, 2006; Russell, C., & Driver, J. New indirect measures of “inattentive” visual grouping in a change-detection task. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 606–623, 2005). We developed an ERP paradigm that allows testing for visual grouping when neither the objects nor its constituents are related to the participant's task. Our paradigm is based on the visual mismatch negativity ERP component, which is elicited by stimuli deviating from a regular stimulus sequence even when the stimuli are ignored. Our stimuli consisted of four pairs of colored discs that served as objects. These objects were presented isochronously while participants were engaged in a task related to the continuously presented fixation cross. Occasionally, two color deviances occurred simultaneously either within the same object or across two different objects. We found significant ERP differences for same- versus different-object deviances, supporting the notion that forming visual object representations by grouping can occur outside the focus of voluntary attention. Also our behavioral experiment, in which participants responded to color deviances—thus, this time the discs but, again, not the objects were task relevant—showed that the object status matters. Our results stress the importance of early grouping processes for structuring the perceptual world.