Gerlach Christian
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark OdenseOdense, Denmark.
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 17;8:1404. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01404. eCollection 2017.
The structural similarity of objects has been an important variable in explaining why some objects are easier to categorize at a superordinate level than to individuate, and also why some patients with brain injury have more difficulties in recognizing natural (structurally similar) objects than artifacts (structurally distinct objects). In spite of its merits as an explanatory variable, structural similarity is not a unitary construct, and it has been operationalized in different ways. Furthermore, even though measures of structural similarity have been successful in explaining task and category-effects, this has been based more on implication than on direct empirical demonstrations. Here, the direct influence of two different measures of structural similarity, and , on object individuation (object decision) and superordinate categorization performance is examined. Both measures can account for performance differences across objects, but in different conditions. It is argued that this reflects differences between the measures in whether they tap: (i) global or local shape characteristics, and (ii) between- or within-category structural similarity.
物体的结构相似性一直是一个重要变量，可用于解释为何有些物体在上级层面上比个体化更容易分类，以及为何一些脑损伤患者在识别自然（结构相似）物体时比人造物（结构不同的物体）更困难。尽管结构相似性作为一个解释变量有其优点，但它不是一个单一的概念，并且已通过不同方式进行操作化。此外，尽管结构相似性测量成功地解释了任务和类别效应，但这更多是基于推测而非直接的实证证明。在此，研究了两种不同的结构相似性测量方法对物体个体化（物体决策）和上级分类表现的直接影响。两种测量方法都能解释不同物体之间的表现差异，但在不同条件下。有人认为，这反映了测量方法在以下方面的差异：（i）整体或局部形状特征，以及（ii）类别间或类别内的结构相似性。
