Haptic object recognition based on shape relates to visual object recognition ability

Measuring object recognition ability: Reliability, validity, and the aggregate z-score approach

Measurement of domain-general object recognition ability (o) requires minimization of domain-specific variance. One approach is to model o as a latent variable explaining performance on a battery of tests which differ in task demands and stimuli; however, time and sample requirements may be prohibitive. Alternatively, an aggregate measure of o can be obtained by averaging z-scores across tests. Using data from Sunday et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 676-694, (2022), we demonstrated that aggregate scores from just two such object recognition tests provide a good approximation (r = .79) of factor scores calculated from a model using a much larger set of tests. Some test combinations produced correlations of up to r = .87 with factor scores. We then revised these tests to reduce testing time, and developed an odd one out task, using a unique object category on nearly every trial, to increase task and stimuli diversity. To validate our measures, 163 participants completed the object recognition tests on two occasions, one month apart. Providing the first evidence that o is stable over time, our short aggregate o measure demonstrated good test-retest reliability (r = .77). The stability of o could not be completely accounted for by intelligence, perceptual speed, and early visual ability. Structural equation modeling suggested that our tests load significantly onto the same latent variable, and revealed that as a latent variable, o is highly stable (r = .93). Aggregation is an efficient method for estimating o, allowing investigation of individual differences in object recognition ability to be more accessible in future studies.

Distinct but related abilities for visual and haptic object recognition

People vary in their ability to recognize objects visually. Individual differences for matching and recognizing objects visually is supported by a domain-general ability capturing common variance across different tasks (e.g., Richler et al., Psychological Review, 126, 226-251, 2019). Behavioral (e.g., Cooke et al., Neuropsychologia, 45, 484-495, 2007) and neural evidence (e.g., Amedi, Cerebral Cortex, 12, 1202-1212, 2002) suggest overlapping mechanisms in the processing of visual and haptic information in the service of object recognition, but it is unclear whether such group-average results generalize to individual differences. Psychometrically validated measures are required, which have been lacking in the haptic modality. We investigate whether object recognition ability is specific to vision or extends to haptics using psychometric measures we have developed. We use multiple visual and haptic tests with different objects and different formats to measure domain-general visual and haptic abilities and to test for relations across them. We measured object recognition abilities using two visual tests and four haptic tests (two each for two kinds of haptic exploration) in 97 participants. Partial correlation and confirmatory factor analyses converge to support the existence of a domain-general haptic object recognition ability that is moderately correlated with domain-general visual object recognition ability. Visual and haptic abilities share about 25% of their variance, supporting the existence of a multisensory domain-general ability while leaving a substantial amount of residual variance for modality-specific abilities. These results extend our understanding of the structure of object recognition abilities; while there are mechanisms that may generalize across categories, tasks, and modalities, there are still other mechanisms that are distinct between modalities.

Evidence for an amodal domain-general object recognition ability

A general object recognition ability predicts performance across a variety of high-level visual tests, categories, and performance in haptic recognition. Does this ability extend to auditory recognition? Vision and haptics tap into similar representations of shape and texture. In contrast, features of auditory perception like pitch, timbre, or loudness do not readily translate into shape percepts related to edges, surfaces, or spatial arrangement of parts. We find that an auditory object recognition ability correlates highly with a visual object recognition ability after controlling for general intelligence, perceptual speed, low-level visual ability, and memory ability. Auditory object recognition was a stronger predictor of visual object recognition than all control measures across two experiments, even though those control variables were also tested visually. These results point towards a single high-level ability used in both vision and audition. Much work highlights how the integration of visual and auditory information is important in specific domains (e.g., speech, music), with evidence for some overlap of visual and auditory neural representations. Our results are the first to reveal a domain-general ability, o, that predicts object recognition performance in both visual and auditory tests. Because o is domain-general, it reveals mechanisms that apply across a wide range of situations, independent of experience and knowledge. As o is distinct from general intelligence, it is well positioned to potentially add predictive validity when explaining individual differences in a variety of tasks, above and beyond measures of common cognitive abilities like general intelligence and working memory.

Object recognition ability predicts category learning with medical images

We investigated the relationship between category learning and domain-general object recognition ability (o). We assessed this relationship in a radiological context, using a category learning test in which participants judged whether white blood cells were cancerous. In study 1, Bayesian evidence negated a relationship between o and category learning. This lack of correlation occurred despite high reliability in all measurements. However, participants only received feedback on the first 10 of 60 trials. In study 2, we assigned participants to one of two conditions: feedback on only the first 10 trials, or on all 60 trials of the category learning test. We found strong Bayesian evidence for a correlation between o and categorisation accuracy in the full-feedback condition, but not when feedback was limited to early trials. Moderate Bayesian evidence supported a difference between these correlations. Without feedback, participants may stick to simple rules they formulate at the start of category learning, when trials are easier. Feedback may encourage participants to abandon less effective rules and switch to exemplar learning. This work provides the first evidence relating o to a specific learning mechanism, suggesting this ability is more dependent upon exemplar learning mechanisms than rule abstraction. Object-recognition ability could complement other sources of individual differences when predicting accuracy of medical image interpretation.

Do our hands see what our eyes see? Investigating spatial and haptic abilities

Spatial abilities (SAs) are cognitive resources used to mentally manipulate representations of objects to solve problems. Haptic abilities (HAs) represent tactile interactions with real-world objects transforming somatic information into mental representations. Both are proposed to be factors in anatomy education, yet relationships between SAs and HAs remain unknown. The objective of the current study was to explore SA-HA interactions. A haptic ability test (HAT) was developed based on the mental rotations test (MRT) with three-dimensional (3D) objects. The HAT was undertaken in three sensory conditions: (1) sighted, (2) sighted with haptics, and (3) haptics. Participants (n = 22; 13 females, 9 males) completed the MRT and were categorized into high spatial abilities (HSAs) (n = 12, mean± standard deviation: 13.7 ± 3.0) and low spatial abilities (LSAs) (n = 10, 5.6 ± 2.0) based on score distributions about the overall mean. Each SA group's HAT scores were compared across the three sensory conditions. Spearman's correlation coefficients between MRT and HAT scores indicated a statistically significant correlation in sighted condition (r = 0.553, p = 0.015) but were not significant in the sighted with haptics (r = 0.0.078, p = 0.212) and haptics (r = 0.043, p = 0.279) conditions. These data suggest HAs appear unrelated to SAs. With haptic exploration, LSA HAT scores were compensated; comparing HSA with LSA: sighted with haptics [median (lower and upper quartiles): 12 (12,13) vs. 12 (11,13), p = 0.254], and haptics [12 (11,13) vs. 12 (10,12), p = 0.381] conditions. Migrations to online anatomy teaching may unwittingly remove important sensory modalities from the learner. Understanding learner behaviors and performance when haptic inputs are removed from the learning environment represents valuable insight informing future anatomy curriculum and resource development.

Visual object recognition ability is not related to experience with visual arts

Visual arts require the ability to process, categorize, recognize, and understand a variety of visual inputs. These challenges may engage and even influence mechanisms that are also relevant for visual object recognition beyond visual arts. A domain-general object recognition ability that applies broadly across a range of visual tasks was recently discovered. Here, we ask whether experience with visual arts is correlated with this domain-general ability. We developed a new survey to measure general visual arts experience and use it to measure arts experience in 142 individuals in whom we also estimated domain-general object recognition ability. Despite our measures demonstrating high reliability in a large sample size, we found substantial evidence (BF01 = 9.52) for no correlation between visual arts experience and general object recognition ability. This suggests that experience in visual arts has little influence on object recognition skills or vice versa, at least in our sample ranging from low to moderately high levels of arts experience. Our methods can be extended to other populations and our results should be replicated, as they suggest some limitations for the generalization of programs targeting visual literacy beyond the visual arts.