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.

Object recognition ability predicts category learning with medical images.

We investigated the relationship between category learning and domain-general object recognition ability (o). We assessed this relationship in a radiological context, using a category learning test in which participants judged whether white blood cells were cancerous. In study 1, Bayesian evidence negated a relationship between o and category learning. This lack of correlation occurred despite high reliability in all measurements. However, participants only received feedback on the first 10 of 60 trials. In study 2, we assigned participants to one of two conditions: feedback on only the first 10 trials, or on all 60 trials of the category learning test. We found strong Bayesian evidence for a correlation between o and categorisation accuracy in the full-feedback condition, but not when feedback was limited to early trials. Moderate Bayesian evidence supported a difference between these correlations. Without feedback, participants may stick to simple rules they formulate at the start of category learning, when trials are easier. Feedback may encourage participants to abandon less effective rules and switch to exemplar learning. This work provides the first evidence relating o to a specific learning mechanism, suggesting this ability is more dependent upon exemplar learning mechanisms than rule abstraction. Object-recognition ability could complement other sources of individual differences when predicting accuracy of medical image interpretation.

A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009-2019).

The dominant belief is that science progresses by testing theories and moving towards theoretical consensus. While it's implicitly assumed that psychology operates in this manner, critical discussions claim that the field suffers from a lack of cumulative theory. To examine this paradox, we analysed research published in Psychological Science from 2009-2019 (N = 2,225). We found mention of 359 theories in-text, most were referred to only once. Only 53.66% of all manuscripts included the word theory, and only 15.33% explicitly claimed to test predictions derived from theories. We interpret this to suggest that the majority of research published in this flagship journal is not driven by theory, nor can it be contributing to cumulative theory building. These data provide insight into the kinds of research psychologists are conducting and raises questions about the role of theory in the psychological sciences.