The Role of Action in Object Categorization

The hypothesis underlying the present work is that knowledge organization in the mind/brain reflects the actions with which an organism responds to the input and not the perceptual properties of the input and it can be flexibly adapted to new goals. We present the results of two simulations using artificial neural networks in which an organism must generate various movements of its 2segment arm in response to visually perceived objects. In the first simulation we find that the internal representations of the organism’s neural network are organized in terms of macro-actions, that is, sequences of movements (microactions) that allow the organism to correctly respond to the objects. In the second simulation the organism’s neural network is able to flexibly organize itself in order to adapt to different tasks. The network’s internal representations of objects reflect the current task and not the perceptual similarities among the objects. In absence of task information, however, perceptual similarity is the best predictor of categorization. An account of categorization in terms of action makes it possible to explain the so-called ‘shape-bias’ in object categorization. Shape is a better predictor of categorization than other object properties such as color and size because we tend to respond in the same way to objects with the same shape rather than to objects with the same color or size.

[1]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts , 1987 .

[2]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Deriving Categories to Achieve Goals , 1991 .

[3]  Frederick David Abraham,et al.  Chaos theory in psychology. , 1995 .

[4]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name , 1998 .

[5]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[6]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  S. Sloman,et al.  Similarity as an explanatory construct , 1998, Cognition.

[8]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The development of features in object concepts , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  J. Hampton Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories , 1998, Cognition.

[10]  A. Glenberg,et al.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Perceiving and remembering:Category stability, variability, and development , 1997 .

[13]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[14]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Reuniting perception and conception , 1998, Cognition.

[16]  L. Rips Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

[17]  Domenico Parisi,et al.  THE ROLE OF PERCEPTION AND ACTION IN OBJECT CATEGORISATION , 2002 .

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

[19]  P. Viviani,et al.  Biological movements look uniform: evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Similarity- versus rule-based categorization , 1994, Memory & cognition.