| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pattern recognition (psychology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 27 November 2014. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources. |
Conrad, N. J., & Levy, B. (2011). Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed. Reading And Writing, 24(1), 91-115. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9202-x
Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161-167. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.161
Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal Of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 63(1), 24-32. doi:10.1037/a0012870
Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2011). Investigating the anticipatory nature of pattern perception in sport. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 894-901. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0067-7
Master, S., Larue, M., & Tremblay, F. (2010). Characterization of human tactile pattern recognition performance at different ages. Somatosensory & Motor Research, 27(2), 60-67. doi:10.3109/08990220.2010.485959
Samantha Roberts20 ( talk) 08:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Samantha Roberts
Chapuis, Julie & Wilson, Donald A. (Jan, 2012). “Bidirectional plasticity of cortical pattern recognition and behavioral sensory acuity” Nature Neuroscience, 15(1):p155-161.
Conrad, Nicole J. & Levy, Betty Ann. (Jan, 2011). “Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed” Reading and Writing, 24(1):p91-115
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Rogers, James. (Jul, 2011). “Aural pattern recognition experiments and the Subregular Hierarchy” Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(3):p329-342.
Rozado, David, Rodriquez, Francisco B., & Varona, Pablo. (Mar, 2012). “Extending the bioinspired hierarchical temporal memory paradigm for sign language recognition”. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 79:p75-86
Velez, Alejandro & Bee, Mark A. (Dec, 2011). “Dip listening and the cocktail party problem in grey treefrogs: Signal recognition in temporally fluctuating noise” Animal Behaviour, 82(6):p1319-1327
Bilalic, Merim, Langner, Robert, Erb, Michael, & Grodd, Wolfgang. (Nov 2010). "Mechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: A study with chess experts". Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139(4):p728-742
Michellearita ( talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The information that is provided on the original Wikipedia article seems to have all the basic information about pattern recognition. A main concern for our group was to continue to add more information in order to be able to create a fuller understanding of our topic. Pattern recognition is said to be the automatic process of recognizing specific stimuli that leads to the identification of the figures, words and other items that may be in our frame of view.
There are many theories that are used to explain the complicated process of pattern recognition. The first of these is template matching, which is taking the sensory information that is received and comparing it to templates that had been formed from previous experiences and are stored in long term memory.Template matching model is based on existence of human memory is by duplicating the real world pattern, which is formed from past experience called templates. According to WANG Shugen (2002) , the basic of template matching is the necessary corresponding templates be stored in the memory in advance in order to recognize a pattern in the real world. However, when the real world patterns does not match since there are various and many different patterns, each distinct case has it’s corresponding templates or else, the pattern recognition fails. which means that in order to realize pattern recognition, people should have tremendous amount of templates already stored in their memory which it could increase burden of memory. in order to overcome with this issue, it is suggested by scholars to add a pre-processing process to template matching, which is adjusting the various difference in the initial stage of pattern recognition by standardizing them to reduce the templates.
An example of template matching would be the study done in which participants were shown a basketball progression in static images and in a video progression (Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. 2011) . The results of this study showed that subjects had a harder time identifying what would happen next in the basketball sequence when it was presented in images than when it was shown to them in a video. When one usually sees an event in basketball it is in motion, so watching the progression in motion it is easy to pick up what is going to happen. Static images are rarely used to show basketball events, meaning, the participant is less likely to have experience interpreting plays this way. The lack of a template to match is what decreases their recognition.
Prototype matching is taking key characteristics of a subject and making a connection through the combination of those characteristics by finding a match that can fit best. Supporting this theory is an experiment done on first and second graders in which they trained to recognize letters in different ways then tested to see which one has the fastest recognition speed (Conrad & Levy 2009). The children were trained to recognize certain patterns then tested. This means that they were using their knowledge of the prototype of the system to find the correct answer when tested.
Feature analysis is the concept that the sensory system takes the incoming stimuli and breaks it down into key features. These features are then compared to memory in order to make a connection that can best fit the features that had been identified. Support for this theory was a study done at Tubingen University (Bilalic, Langner, Erb, & Grodd, 2010), which was done in order to test how chess players are able to work their way through the numerous possibilities that occur during a chess game based on knowledge of each piece on the game board. Results showed that experts’ were more efficient due to the advantage of having simple object recognition. When the pieces were in a generally normal position on the board, experts performed more efficiently than when the pieces were placed in abnormal positions. Due to the decrease in performance when the pieces were in random places, researchers concluded that the experts’ could no longer use their advanced pattern recognition abilities which resulted in the lower performances. This study showed that the experts’ would take the game board and break it down into recognizable key features. All of these features would then be used in order to make a connection within memory.
Another theory is known as the recognition of components, which is based on the idea that all objects are made up of shapes known as geons that are combined together in different ways in order to create the object.
Lastly, there is top down processing, which is the recognition of an object using past information to guide our interpretation. Bottom up processing is taking the smaller features and combining them to form a larger representation. An example of top-down processing can be found in a study conducted by Conrad and Levy (2011), where they applied training in order to see if it would improve the reading skills of children who tended to score low in rapid automatized naming. The types of training consisted of either orthographic, which is concerned with the spelling of the word and speeded letter training. Results showed orthographic training was able to benefit children’s reading abilities. The training helped the children in recognizing new words when they were presented during the study by making them aware that there were similarities in concerns with the orthographic properties of words. The consciousness of orthographic properties caused the children to process the individual letters in the word more closely. This can be applied to the top-down theory because children began with the past ability and knowledge of how to read and process words, however, through the study, they gained knowledge of orthographic properties through the training and learned the need to process letters closely.
Michellearita ( talk) 16:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Does it actually want to say "Multiple discrimination scaling"? Ooker ( talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly how is this topic related to Alzheimer disease and how can more knowledge of this topic help those people suffering with that disease? Ccmcvey ( talk) 22:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pattern recognition (psychology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
| This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 27 November 2014. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources. |
Conrad, N. J., & Levy, B. (2011). Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed. Reading And Writing, 24(1), 91-115. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9202-x
Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161-167. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.161
Fernandes, M., & Guild, E. (2009). Process-specific interference effects during recognition of spatial patterns and words. Canadian Journal Of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 63(1), 24-32. doi:10.1037/a0012870
Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2011). Investigating the anticipatory nature of pattern perception in sport. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 894-901. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0067-7
Master, S., Larue, M., & Tremblay, F. (2010). Characterization of human tactile pattern recognition performance at different ages. Somatosensory & Motor Research, 27(2), 60-67. doi:10.3109/08990220.2010.485959
Samantha Roberts20 ( talk) 08:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Samantha Roberts
Chapuis, Julie & Wilson, Donald A. (Jan, 2012). “Bidirectional plasticity of cortical pattern recognition and behavioral sensory acuity” Nature Neuroscience, 15(1):p155-161.
Conrad, Nicole J. & Levy, Betty Ann. (Jan, 2011). “Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed” Reading and Writing, 24(1):p91-115
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Rogers, James. (Jul, 2011). “Aural pattern recognition experiments and the Subregular Hierarchy” Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(3):p329-342.
Rozado, David, Rodriquez, Francisco B., & Varona, Pablo. (Mar, 2012). “Extending the bioinspired hierarchical temporal memory paradigm for sign language recognition”. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 79:p75-86
Velez, Alejandro & Bee, Mark A. (Dec, 2011). “Dip listening and the cocktail party problem in grey treefrogs: Signal recognition in temporally fluctuating noise” Animal Behaviour, 82(6):p1319-1327
Bilalic, Merim, Langner, Robert, Erb, Michael, & Grodd, Wolfgang. (Nov 2010). "Mechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: A study with chess experts". Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139(4):p728-742
Michellearita ( talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The information that is provided on the original Wikipedia article seems to have all the basic information about pattern recognition. A main concern for our group was to continue to add more information in order to be able to create a fuller understanding of our topic. Pattern recognition is said to be the automatic process of recognizing specific stimuli that leads to the identification of the figures, words and other items that may be in our frame of view.
There are many theories that are used to explain the complicated process of pattern recognition. The first of these is template matching, which is taking the sensory information that is received and comparing it to templates that had been formed from previous experiences and are stored in long term memory.Template matching model is based on existence of human memory is by duplicating the real world pattern, which is formed from past experience called templates. According to WANG Shugen (2002) , the basic of template matching is the necessary corresponding templates be stored in the memory in advance in order to recognize a pattern in the real world. However, when the real world patterns does not match since there are various and many different patterns, each distinct case has it’s corresponding templates or else, the pattern recognition fails. which means that in order to realize pattern recognition, people should have tremendous amount of templates already stored in their memory which it could increase burden of memory. in order to overcome with this issue, it is suggested by scholars to add a pre-processing process to template matching, which is adjusting the various difference in the initial stage of pattern recognition by standardizing them to reduce the templates.
An example of template matching would be the study done in which participants were shown a basketball progression in static images and in a video progression (Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. 2011) . The results of this study showed that subjects had a harder time identifying what would happen next in the basketball sequence when it was presented in images than when it was shown to them in a video. When one usually sees an event in basketball it is in motion, so watching the progression in motion it is easy to pick up what is going to happen. Static images are rarely used to show basketball events, meaning, the participant is less likely to have experience interpreting plays this way. The lack of a template to match is what decreases their recognition.
Prototype matching is taking key characteristics of a subject and making a connection through the combination of those characteristics by finding a match that can fit best. Supporting this theory is an experiment done on first and second graders in which they trained to recognize letters in different ways then tested to see which one has the fastest recognition speed (Conrad & Levy 2009). The children were trained to recognize certain patterns then tested. This means that they were using their knowledge of the prototype of the system to find the correct answer when tested.
Feature analysis is the concept that the sensory system takes the incoming stimuli and breaks it down into key features. These features are then compared to memory in order to make a connection that can best fit the features that had been identified. Support for this theory was a study done at Tubingen University (Bilalic, Langner, Erb, & Grodd, 2010), which was done in order to test how chess players are able to work their way through the numerous possibilities that occur during a chess game based on knowledge of each piece on the game board. Results showed that experts’ were more efficient due to the advantage of having simple object recognition. When the pieces were in a generally normal position on the board, experts performed more efficiently than when the pieces were placed in abnormal positions. Due to the decrease in performance when the pieces were in random places, researchers concluded that the experts’ could no longer use their advanced pattern recognition abilities which resulted in the lower performances. This study showed that the experts’ would take the game board and break it down into recognizable key features. All of these features would then be used in order to make a connection within memory.
Another theory is known as the recognition of components, which is based on the idea that all objects are made up of shapes known as geons that are combined together in different ways in order to create the object.
Lastly, there is top down processing, which is the recognition of an object using past information to guide our interpretation. Bottom up processing is taking the smaller features and combining them to form a larger representation. An example of top-down processing can be found in a study conducted by Conrad and Levy (2011), where they applied training in order to see if it would improve the reading skills of children who tended to score low in rapid automatized naming. The types of training consisted of either orthographic, which is concerned with the spelling of the word and speeded letter training. Results showed orthographic training was able to benefit children’s reading abilities. The training helped the children in recognizing new words when they were presented during the study by making them aware that there were similarities in concerns with the orthographic properties of words. The consciousness of orthographic properties caused the children to process the individual letters in the word more closely. This can be applied to the top-down theory because children began with the past ability and knowledge of how to read and process words, however, through the study, they gained knowledge of orthographic properties through the training and learned the need to process letters closely.
Michellearita ( talk) 16:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Does it actually want to say "Multiple discrimination scaling"? Ooker ( talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly how is this topic related to Alzheimer disease and how can more knowledge of this topic help those people suffering with that disease? Ccmcvey ( talk) 22:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)