Just because someone is smart and
well-motivated doesn't mean he or she can learn the visual skills needed
to excel at tasks like matching fingerprints, interpreting medical
X-rays, keeping track of aircraft on radar displays or forensic face
matching.
That is the implication of a new study which shows for the first time that there is a broad range of differences in people's
visual ability and that these variations are not associated with
individuals' general intelligence, or IQ. The research is reported in a
paper titled "Domain-specific and domain-general individual differences
in visual object recognition" published in the September issue of the journal Cognition and the implications are discussed in a review article in press at Current Directions in Psychological Science.
"People may think they can tell how good they are at identifying
objects visually," said Isabel Gauthier, David K. Wilson Professor of
Psychology at Vanderbilt University, who headed the study. "But it turns
out that they are not very good at evaluating their own skills relative
to others."
In the past, research in visual object recognition has focused
largely on what people have in common, but Gauthier became interested in
the question of how much visual ability varies among individuals. To
answer this question, she and her colleagues had to develop a new test, which they call the Novel Object Memory Test (NOMT), to measure people's ability to identify unfamiliar objects.
Gauthier first wanted to gauge public opinions about visual skills.
She did so by surveying 100 laypeople using the Amazon Mechanical Turk
crowdsourcing service. She found that respondents generally consider
visual tasks as fairly different from other tasks related to general
intelligence. She also discovered that they feel there is less variation
in people's visual skills than there is in non-visual skills such as
verbal and math ability.
The main problem that Gauthier and colleagues had to address in assessing individuals' innate visual recognition
ability was familiarity. The more time a person spends learning about
specific types of objects, such as faces, cars or birds, the better they
get at identifying them. As a result, performance on visual recognition
tests that use images of common objects are a complex mixture of
people's visual ability and their experience with these objects.
Importantly, they have proven to be a poor predictor of how well someone
can learn to identify objects in a new domain.
Gauthier addressed this problem by using novel computer-generated
creatures called greebles, sheinbugs and ziggerins to study visual
recognition. The basic test consists of studying six target creatures ,
followed by a number of test trials displaying creatures in sets of
three. Each set contains a creature from the target group along with two
unfamiliar creatures, and the participant is asked to pick out the
creature that is familiar.
Analyzing the results from more than 2000 subjects, Gauthier and
colleagues discovered that the ability to recognize one kind of creature
was well predicted by how well subjects could recognize the other kind,
although these objects were visually quite different. This confirmed
the new test can predict the ability to learn new categories.
The psychologists also used performance on several IQ-related tests
and determined that the visual ability measured on the NOMT is distinct
from and independent of general intelligence.
"This is quite exciting because performance on cognitive skills is
almost always associated with general intelligence," Gauthier said. "It
suggests that we really can learn something new about people using these
tests, over and beyond all the abilities we already know how to
measure."
Although the study confirms the popular intuition that visual skill
is different from general intelligence, it found that individual
variations in visual ability are much larger than most people think. For
instance, on one metric, called the coefficient of variation, the
spread of people was wider on the NOMT than on a nonverbal IQ test.
"A lot of jobs and hobbies depend on visual skills," Gauthier said. "Because they are independent of general intelligence,
the next step is to explore how we can use these tests in real-world
applications where performance could not be well predicted before."
SOURCE:
MedicalXpress and Provided by:
Vanderbilt University




No comments:
Post a Comment