Evidence for an amodal domain-general object recognition ability

Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations

Measurement of object recognition (OR) ability could predict learning and success in real-world settings, and there is hope that it may reduce bias often observed in cognitive tests. Although the measurement of visual OR is not expected to be influenced by the language of participants or the language of instructions, these assumptions remain largely untested. Here, we address the challenges of measuring OR abilities across linguistically diverse populations. In Study 1, we find that English-Spanish bilinguals, when randomly assigned to the English or Spanish version of the novel object memory test (NOMT), exhibit a highly similar overall performance. Study 2 extends this by assessing psychometric equivalence using an approach grounded in item response theory (IRT). We examined whether groups fluent in English or Spanish differed in (a) latent OR ability as assessed by a three-parameter logistic IRT model, and (2) the mapping of observed item responses on the latent OR construct, as assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Spanish speakers performed better than English speakers, a difference we suggest is due to motivational differences between groups of vastly different size on the Prolific platform. That we found no substantial DIF between the groups tested in English or Spanish on the NOMT indicates measurement invariance. The feasibility of increasing diversity by combining groups tested in different languages remains unexplored. Adopting this approach could enable visual scientists to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in their research, and potentially in the broader application of their work in society.

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.

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.

What, if anything, can be considered an amodal sensory dimension?

The term 'amodal' is a key topic in several different research fields across experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, including in the areas of developmental and perception science. However, despite being regularly used in the literature, the term means something different to the researchers working in the different contexts. Many developmental scientists conceive of the term as referring to those perceptual qualities, such as, for example, the size and shape of an object, that can be picked up by multiple senses (e.g., vision and touch potentially providing information relevant to the same physical stimulus/property). However, the amodal label is also widely used in the case of those qualities that are not directly sensory, such as, for example, numerosity, rhythm, synchrony, etc. Cognitive neuroscientists, by contrast, tend to use the term amodal to refer to those central cognitive processes and brain areas that do not appear to be preferentially responsive to a particular sensory modality or to those symbolic or formal representations that essentially lack any modality and that are assumed to play a role in the higher processing of sensory information. Finally, perception scientists sometimes refer to the phenomenon of 'amodal completion', referring to the spontaneous completion of perceptual information that is missing when occluded objects are presented to observers. In this paper, we review the various different ways in which the term 'amodal' has been used in the literature and the evidence supporting the various uses of the term. Morever, we highlight some of the various properties that have been suggested to be 'amodal' over the years. Then, we try to address some of the questions that arise from the reviewed evidence, such as: Do different uses of the 'term' refer to different domains, for example, sensory information, perceptual processes, or perceptual representations? Are there any commonalities among the different uses of the term? To what extent is research on cross-modal associations (or correspondences) related to, or can shed light on, amodality? And how is the notion of amodal related to multisensory integration? Based on the reviewed evidence, it is argued that there is, as yet, no convincing empirical evidence to support the claim that amodal sensory qualities exist. We thus suggest that use of the term amodal would be more meaningful with respect to abstract cognition rather than necessarily sensory perception, the latter being more adequately explained/understood in terms of highly redundant cross-modal correspondences.