Developmental changes in visual object recognition between 18 and 24 months of age.

Two experiments examined developmental changes in children's visual recognition of common objects during the period of 18 to 24 months. Experiment 1 examined children's ability to recognize common category instances that presented three different kinds of information: (1) richly detailed and prototypical instances that presented both local and global shape information, color, textural and featural information, (2) the same rich and prototypical shapes but no color, texture or surface featural information, or (3) that presented only abstract and global representations of object shape in terms of geometric volumes. Significant developmental differences were observed only for the abstract shape representations in terms of geometric volumes, the kind of shape representation that has been hypothesized to underlie mature object recognition. Further, these differences were strongly linked in individual children to the number of object names in their productive vocabulary. Experiment 2 replicated these results and showed further that the less advanced children's object recognition was based on the piecemeal use of individual features and parts, rather than overall shape. The results provide further evidence for significant and rapid developmental changes in object recognition during the same period children first learn object names. The implications of the results for theories of visual object recognition, the relation of object recognition to category learning, and underlying developmental processes are discussed.

[1]  L. Standing.  Learning 10,000 pictures. , 1973, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  S. Carey,et al.  From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. , 1977, Science.

[3]  S. Carey,et al.  Development of face recognition: A maturational component? , 1980 .

[4]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[5]  R. Weale.  Vision. A Computational Investigation Into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. David Marr , 1983 .

[6]  John Cerella,et al.  Pigeons and perceptrons , 1986, Pattern Recognit..

[7]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[8]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[9]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  E. Goldstein.  Sensation and perception, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[11]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language and the career of similarity. , 1991 .

[12]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline , 1991, Cognition.

[13]  James P. Byrnes,et al.  Perspectives on language and thought : interrelations in development , 1991 .

[14]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[16]  I Biederman,et al.  Metric invariance in object recognition: a review and further evidence. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[17]  N. Soja.  Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax , 1992 .

[18]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[19]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993 .

[20]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Variability in early communicative development. , 1994, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[21]  F. Keil.  Mapping the mind: The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things , 1994 .

[22]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Children's Theories of Word Meaning: The Role of Shape Similarity in Early Acquisition , 1994 .

[23]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  THE INSTRUMENT IS GREAT, BUT MEASURING COMPREHENSION IS STILL A PROBLEM , 1994 .

[24]  S. Gelman,et al.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity In Cognition And Culture , 1994 .

[25]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? , 1996, Cognition.

[26]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Visual object recognition. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[27]  P D Eimas,et al.  Perceptual cues that permit categorical differentiation of animal species by infants. , 1996, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[28]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[29]  I Biederman,et al.  Neurocomputational bases of object and face recognition. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[30]  Nathan Intrator,et al.  Learning as Extraction of Low-Dimensional Representations , 1997 .

[31]  Virginia C. Mueller Gathercole,et al.  Word meaning biases or language-specific effects? Evidence from English, Spanish and Korean , 1997 .

[32]  M. Tarr,et al.  Becoming a “Greeble” Expert: Exploring Mechanisms for Face Recognition , 1997, Vision Research.

[33]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Similarity, Connectionism, and the Problem of Representation in Vision , 1997, Neural Computation.

[34]  E. Rolls.  High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition, Shimon Ullman. MIT Press, Bradford (1996), ISBN 0 262 21013 4 , 1997 .

[35]  J. Hummel,et al.  Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  G. Butterworth,et al.  Infants' attention to object structure in early categorization. , 1998, Developmental psychology.

[37]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine , 1998, Cognition.

[38]  G. Butterworth,et al.  Infants' use of object parts in early categorization. , 1998, Developmental psychology.

[39]  L. Cohen,et al.  Infants’ Use of Functional Parts in Basic-like Categorization , 1999 .

[40]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representation and recognition in vision , 1999 .

[41]  Mutsumi Imai.  Constraint on word-learning constraints , 1999 .

[42]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? , 1999, Cognition.

[43]  Robert A. Wilson,et al.  Book Reviews: The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences , 2000, CL.

[44]  Robert A. Wilson,et al.  Book Reviews: The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences , 2000, CL.

[45]  D. Maurer,et al.  Face Perception During Early Infancy , 1999 .

[46]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  The Individual is Nothing, the Class Everything: Psychophysics and Modeling of Recognition in Obect Classes , 2000 .

[47]  D. Mareschal.  Object knowledge in infancy: current controversies and approaches , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  A. Grafstein.  MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences , 2000 .

[49]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Where View-based Theories Break Down: The Role of Structure in Shape Perception and Object Recognition , 2000 .

[50]  I. Biederman.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: a review of recent research and theory. , 2000, Spatial vision.

[51]  C. Nelson.  The Development and Neural Bases of Face Recognition , 2001 .

[52]  P. Kellman.  Separating processes in object perception. , 2001, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[53]  A Yonas,et al.  What's in a shape? Children represent shape variability differently than adults when naming objects. , 2001, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[54]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[55]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object name Learning Provides On-the-Job Training for Attention , 2002, Psychological science.

[56]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  D. Maurer,et al.  Configural Face Processing Develops more Slowly than Featural Face Processing , 2002, Perception.

[58]  Robert M. French,et al.  Asymmetric interference in 3- to 4-month-olds' sequential category learning , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[59]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[60]  M. Tarr,et al.  Visual Object Recognition , 1996, ISTCS.

[61]  Linda B. Smith.  Learning to Recognize Objects , 2003, Psychological science.

[62]  Brian J. Stankiewicz.  Just another view , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[63]  Linda B Smith,et al.  Known and novel noun extensions: attention at two levels of abstraction. , 2003, Child development.

[64]  Nathan Intrator,et al.  Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[65]  Barbara A. Younger,et al.  A Comparison of Visual Familiarization and Object-Examining Measures of Categorization in 9-Month-Old Infants , 2003 .

[66]  W. Hayward.  After the viewpoint debate: where next in object recognition? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  L. Wood,et al.  From the Authors , 2003, European Respiratory Journal.

[68]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Recognition invariance obtained by extended and invariant features , 2004, Neural Networks.

[69]  Asaid Khateb,et al.  Visual recognition of faces, objects, and words using degraded stimuli: Where and when it occurs , 2004, Human brain mapping.

[70]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Independent Processing of Parts and of Their Spatial Organization in Complex Visual Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

[71]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes , 1993, Minds and Machines.

[72]  P. Quinn.  Development of subordinate-level categorization in 3- to 7-month-old infants. , 2004, Child development.

[73]  P. Quinn.  Is the asymmetry in young infants’ categorization of humans versus nonhuman animals based on head, body, or global gestalt information? , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[74]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Shape and the first hundred nouns. , 2004, Child development.

[75]  Linda B. Smith.  Action Alters Shape Categories , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[76]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Rapid categorization of foveal and extrafoveal natural images: Associated ERPs and effects of lateralization , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[77]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Microgenesis and Ontogenesis of Perceptual Organization , 2005, Psychological science.

[78]  Linda B Smith,et al.  Object name learning and object perception: a deficit in late talkers , 2005, Journal of Child Language.

[79]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: a role for associative learning. , 2005, Psychological review.

[80]  Cindy M. Bukach,et al.  Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[81]  C. Mash,et al.  Multidimensional shape similarity in the development of visual object classification. , 2006, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[82]  M. Tarr,et al.  Visual object recognition: do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[83]  G. Lupyan,et al.  Developing object concepts in infancy: an associative learning perspective. , 2008, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[84]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  ' s personal copy Simplicity and generalization : Short-cutting abstraction in children ’ s object categorizations , 1997 .

[85]  Developing object concepts in infancy: An associative learning perspective: VI. Simulation 4: A model of Rakison, 2005a: Animacy relations in causal events. , 2008 .

[86]  E. Bates,et al.  INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT , 1995 .