von Dr. Jennifer L. Moore
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Jm/Fragment 109 03 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-18 21:22:21 Hindemith | BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Hayes et al 2007, Jm, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 109, Zeilen: 3-7, 8-21 |
Quelle: Hayes et al 2007 Seite(n): 1, 2, 3, 4, Zeilen: 1: 27-29; 2: 32-38; 3: 3-4, 46-49 - 4: 1 |
|---|---|
| The majority of research into contextual binding between objects and context stems primarily from studies conducted on object perception or object identification in humans, which has typically shown that contextual information enhances object identification (Palmer, 1975; Biederman et al., 1982; Boyce & Pollatsek, 1992; Davenport & Potter, 2004). [Such experiments focused on pre-existing, semantic relationships between objects and their associated contexts.] For example, Bar and Ullman (1996) showed that the presence of a clearly identifiable object facilitated identification of an ambiguous object when the identifiable object was semantically related, as did the presentation of realistic spatial relationships between related objects. However, the implicit influence of visual context on memory for specific, episodically-mediated abstract paired-associates remains to be elucidated (however see Hayes, Nadel & Ryan, 2007 for episodic object recognition).
Neuroimaging studies of scene processing (Epstein & Kanwisher, 1998), object identification (Bar & Aminoff, 2003), and intentional retrieval of visual context information (Hayes et al., 2004) suggest that the medial temporal lobes, most likely the parahippocampal cortex (PHC), may be involved in visual context effects mediating episodic object recognition. Indeed, Hayes and colleagues (2007) recently found that the PHC is important not only for processing of scene information, but also plays a role in successful episodic memory encoding and retrieval. |
The results suggest that PHC is important not only for processing of scene information, but also plays a role in successful episodic memory encoding and retrieval.
[page 2] Evidence for the role of context in object memory comes primarily from research on object perception or object identification in humans, which has shown that contextual information enhances object identification (Palmer, 1975; Biederman et al., 1982; Boyce and Pollatsek, 1992; Davenport and Potter, 2004). For example, Bar and Ullman (1996) showed that the presence of a clearly identifiable object facilitated identification of an ambiguous object when the identifiable object was semantically related, as did the presentation of realistic spatial relationships between related objects. [page 3] However, the influence of visual context on memory for a specific, episodically presented object remains to be determined. [...] [...] [...] Neuroimaging studies of scene processing (Epstein and Kanwisher, 1998), object identification (Bar and Aminoff, 2003), and intentional retrieval of visual context information (Hayes et al., 2004) suggest that the medial temporal lobes, most likely the PHC, may be involved in visual context effects [page 4] mediating episodic object recognition[, although no study we are aware of has directly addressed this issue]. |
The source is mentioned, but is not made clear that the whole overview given here is taken from it. |
|
| [2.] Jm/Fragment 109 21 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-01-12 21:28:22 Graf Isolan | Fragment, Gesichtet, Goh et al 2004, Jm, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 109, Zeilen: 21-25 |
Quelle: Goh et al 2004 Seite(n): 10223, Zeilen: l.col: 7ff |
|---|---|
| Further, the hippocampal and PHC regions have been shown to be responsible for the association of objects with their spatial location in the stimulus environment (Burgess et al., 2002). Other neuroimaging evidence indicates that these regions are also involved in relational processing (Cohen et al., 1999), that is, in integrating or binding disparate elements in a complex scene to form a meaningful representation. | The hippocampal and parahippocampal regions have been shown to be responsible for the association of objects with their spatial location in the stimulus environment (Burgess et al., 2002). Other neuroimaging evidence indicates that these regions are also involved in relational processing (Cohen et al., 1999), that is, in integrating or binding disparate elements in a complex scene to form a meaningful representation. |
The source is mentioned on the following page without any indication that the here documented section is taken from it. Note that the same text has also been used on page 341 of the thesis: Jm/Fragment 341 14 |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20140218212523