The role of contextual materials in object recognition.

While scene context is known to facilitate object recognition, little is known about which contextual "ingredients" are at the heart of this phenomenon. Here, we address the question of whether the materials that frequently occur in scenes (e.g., tiles in a bathroom) associated with specific objects (e.g., a perfume) are relevant for the processing of that object. To this end, we presented photographs of consistent and inconsistent objects (e.g., perfume vs. pinecone) superimposed on scenes (e.g., a bathroom) and close-ups of materials (e.g., tiles). In Experiment 1, consistent objects on scenes were named more accurately than inconsistent ones, while there was only a marginal consistency effect for objects on materials. Also, we did not find any consistency effect for scrambled materials that served as color control condition. In Experiment 2, we recorded event-related potentials and found N300/N400 responses-markers of semantic violations-for objects on inconsistent relative to consistent scenes. Critically, objects on materials triggered N300/N400 responses of similar magnitudes. Our findings show that contextual materials indeed affect object processing-even in the absence of spatial scene structure and object content-suggesting that material is one of the contextual "ingredients" driving scene context effects.

The influence of scene and object orientation on the scene consistency effect.

Contextual regularities help us make sense of our visual environment. In scenes, semantically consistent objects are typically better recognized than inconsistent ones (e.g., a toaster vs. printer in a kitchen). What is the role of object and scene orientation in this so-called scene consistency effect? We presented consistent and inconsistent objects either upright (Experiment 1) or inverted (rotated 180°; Experiment 2) on upright, inverted, and scrambled background scenes. In Experiment 1, on upright scenes, consistent objects were recognized with higher accuracy than inconsistent ones, and we observed N300/N400 event-related potentials (ERPs) reflecting object-scene semantic processing. No such effects were observed for inverted or scrambled scenes. In Experiment 2, on both upright and inverted scenes, consistent objects were recognized with higher accuracy than inconsistent ones. Moreover, inconsistent objects on upright scenes triggered N300/N400 responses. Interestingly, no N300 but only an N400 deflection was found for inconsistent objects on inverted scenes. No effects were observed for scrambled scenes. These data suggest that while upright scenes modulate recognition irrespective of object orientation, inverted scenes only modulate the recognition of inverted objects. In ERPs, we found further evidence that inverted scenes can affect semantic object processing, with contextual influences occurring later in time, possibly driven by delayed or impaired scene gist processing. Mere object inversion does not seem to explain the later emergence of contextual influences. Taken together, the results suggest that the orientation of objects and scenes as well as their relationship to each other can influence ongoing object identification.

The role of scene summary statistics in object recognition.

Objects that are semantically related to the visual scene context are typically better recognized than unrelated objects. While context effects on object recognition are well studied, the question which particular visual information of an object's surroundings modulates its semantic processing is still unresolved. Typically, one would expect contextual influences to arise from high-level, semantic components of a scene but what if even low-level features could modulate object processing? Here, we generated seemingly meaningless textures of real-world scenes, which preserved similar summary statistics but discarded spatial layout information. In Experiment 1, participants categorized such textures better than colour controls that lacked higher-order scene statistics while original scenes resulted in the highest performance. In Experiment 2, participants recognized briefly presented consistent objects on scenes significantly better than inconsistent objects, whereas on textures, consistent objects were recognized only slightly more accurately. In Experiment 3, we recorded event-related potentials and observed a pronounced mid-central negativity in the N300/N400 time windows for inconsistent relative to consistent objects on scenes. Critically, inconsistent objects on textures also triggered N300/N400 effects with a comparable time course, though less pronounced. Our results suggest that a scene's low-level features contribute to the effective processing of objects in complex real-world environments.