Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T20:56:28.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Perception in Expertise

from Part III - Methods for Studying the Structure of Expertise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2018

By
David Landy
Edited by
K. Anders Ericsson ,
Robert R. Hoffman ,
Aaron Kozbelt  and
A. Mark Williams
K. Anders Ericsson
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Robert R. Hoffman
Affiliation:
Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Aaron Kozbelt
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
A. Mark Williams
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance , pp. 151 - 164
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. L. (2007). The massive redeployment hypothesis and the functional topography of the brain. Philosophical Psychology, 20, 143–174.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.Google Scholar
Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 640–645.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, D. W., Goldstone, R. L., van der Maas, H. L., & Landy, D. H. (2016). Non-formal mechanisms in mathematical cognitive development: The case of arithmetic. Cognition, 149, 40–55.Google Scholar
Brants, M., Wagemans, J., & Op de Beeck, H. P. (2011). Activation of fusiform face area by Greebles is related to face similarity but not expertise. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3949–3958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1992). Another look at New Look 1. American Psychologist, 47, 780–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.Google Scholar
Bukach, C. M., Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2006). Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 159–166.Google Scholar
Bukach, C. M., Phillips, W. S., & Gauthier, I. (2010). Limits of generalization between categories and implications for theories of category specificity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1865–1874.Google Scholar
Changizi, M. A., Zhang, Q., Ye, H., & Shimojo, S. (2006). The structures of letters and symbols throughout human history are selected to match those found in objects in natural scenes. American Naturalist, 167, E117–E139.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1998). Magic words: How language augments human computation. In Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J. (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 162–183). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehéricy, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Hénaff, M. A., & Michel, F. (2000). The visual word form area. Brain, 123, 291–307.Google Scholar
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.Google Scholar
Dobson, V., & Teller, D. Y. (1978). Visual acuity in human infants: A review and comparison of behavioral and electrophysiological studies. Vision Research, 18, 1469–1483.Google Scholar
Dorfman, D. D., & Zajonc, R. B. (1963). Some effects of sound, background brightness, and economic status on the perceived size of coins and discs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 87–90.Google Scholar
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2015). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–77.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1984). Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science, 51, 23–43.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Behrmann, M., & Tarr, M. J. (1999). Can face recognition really be dissociated from object recognition? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 349–370.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, A. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 191–197.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (1999). Activation of the middle fusiform “face area” increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 568–573.Google Scholar
Gleicher, M., Correll, M., Nothelfer, C., & Franconeri, S. (2013). Perception of average value in multiclass scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19, 2316–2325.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 586–596.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 265–284.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Weitnauer, E., Ottmar, E., Marghetis, T., & Landy, D. H. (2016). Modeling mathematical reasoning as trained perception-action procedures. In Sottilare, R., Graesser, A., Hu, X., Olney, A., Nye, B., & Sinatra, A. (eds.), Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems, Volume 4: Domain modeling (pp. 213–233). Orlando, FL: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.Google Scholar
Grill-Spector, K., Knouf, N., and Kanwisher, N. (2004). The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 555–562.Google Scholar
Grill-Spector, K., Sayres, R., & Ress, D. (2006). High-resolution imaging reveals highly selective nonface clusters in the fusiform face area. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1177–1185.Google Scholar
Haegerstrom-Portnoy, G., Schneck, M. E., & Brabyn, J. A. (1999). Seeing into old age: Vision function beyond acuity. Optometry & Vision Science, 76, 141–158.Google Scholar
Hansen, M., Goldstone, R. L., & Lumsdaine, A. (2013). What makes code hard to understand? arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.5257.Google Scholar
Harel, A., Kravitz, D., & Baker, C. I. (2013). Beyond perceptual expertise: Revisiting the neural substrates of expert object recognition. Neural Implementations of Expertise, 7, 885.Google Scholar
Harel, A., Kravitz, D. J., & Baker, C. I. (2014). Task context impacts visual object processing differentially across the cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, E962–E971.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. G. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5, 47–55.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M., Canham, M. S., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 37–53.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2009). How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 61–70.Google Scholar
Hole, G. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65–74.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
James, K. H. (2010). Sensori-motor experience leads to changes in visual processing in the developing brain. Developmental Science, 13, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 248–277.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N. (2010). Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional architecture of the mind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107, 11163–11170.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.Google Scholar
Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 285–305.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society, 25, 441–454.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 274–287.Google Scholar
Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004). Visual salience of algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 224–257.Google Scholar
Klein, G. S., Schlesinger, H. J., & Meister, D. E. (1951). The effect of personal values on perception: An experimental critique. Psychological Review, 58, 96–112.Google Scholar
Konar, Y., Bennett, P. J., & Sekuler, A. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21, 38–43.Google Scholar
Lake, B. M., Salakhutdinov, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350, 1332–1338.Google Scholar
Landy, D., Allen, C. & Zednik, C. (2014). A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 275.Google Scholar
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007a). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 720–733.Google Scholar
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007b). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2033–2040.Google Scholar
Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Proximity and precedence in arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1953–1968.Google Scholar
Landy, D. H., Jones, M. N., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). How the appearance of an operator affects its formal precedence. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2109–2114). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D., & Brent, H. P. (2001). Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing. Nature, 410, 890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J. X., & James, K. H. (2016). Handwriting generates variable visual output to facilitate symbol learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 298–313.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2008). The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108, 566–577.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2015). Cognitive penetrability of perception in the age of prediction: Predictive systems are penetrable systems. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 547–569.Google Scholar
Marghetis, T., Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2016). Mastering algebra retrains the visual system to perceive hierarchical structure in equations. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 25.Google Scholar
Maruyama, M., Pallier, C., Jobert, A., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2012). The cortical representation of simple mathematical expressions. NeuroImage, 61, 1444–1460.Google Scholar
McCandliss, B. D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2003). The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 293–299.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., Bolger, D. J., & Khaitan, P. (2014). Interactive activation and mutual constraint satisfaction in perception and cognition. Cognitive Science, 38, 1139–1189.Google Scholar
McGugin, R. W., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Gauthier, I. (2012). High-resolution imaging of expertise reveals reliable object selectivity in the fusiform face area related to perceptual performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109, 17063–17068.Google Scholar
McKone, E., Kanwisher, N., & Duchaine, B. C. (2007). Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 8–15.Google Scholar
Michal, A. L., Uttal, D., Shah, P., & Franconeri, S. L. (2016). Visual routines for extracting magnitude relations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1802–1809.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1954). Familiarity of letter sequences and tachistoscopic identification. Journal of General Psychology, 50, 129–139.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In Gero, J. S. (ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 467–473.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P., Baker, C. I., Dicarlo, J. J., and Kanwisher, N. G. (2006). Discrimination training alters object representations in human extrastriate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 13025–13036.Google Scholar
Patsenko, E. G., & Altmann, E. M. (2010). How planful is routine behavior? A selective-attention model of performance in the Tower of Hanoi. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 95–116.Google Scholar
Perky, C. W. (1910). An experimental study of imagination. American Journal of Psychology, 2, 432–452.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. (2011). Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: From reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron, 72, 692–697.Google Scholar
Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M., & Herwig, A. (eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 171–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinke, K., Fernandes, M., Schwindt, G., O’Craven, K., & Grady, C. L. (2008). Functional specificity of the visual word form area: General activation for words and symbols but specific network activation for words. Brain and Language, 104, 180–189.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Taylor, K., & Tan, S. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313–331.Google Scholar
Richler, J. J., Cheung, O. S., & Gauthier, I. (2011). Holistic processing predicts face recognition. Psychological Science, 22, 464–471.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E.. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rossion, B. (2013). The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception. Visual Cognition, 21, 139–253.Google Scholar
Salvi, C., Bricolo, E., Franconeri, S. L., Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2015). Sudden insight is associated with shutting out visual inputs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1814–1819.Google Scholar
Schneider, E., Maruyama, M., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2012). Eye gaze reveals a fast, parallel extraction of the syntax of arithmetic formulas. Cognition, 125, 475–490.Google Scholar
Segal, S. J., & Nathan, S. (1964). The Perky effect: Incorporation of an external stimulus into an imagery experience under placebo and control conditions. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 18, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shayan, S., Abrahamson, D., Bakker, A., Duijzer, A. C. G., & Van der Schaaf, M. F. (2015). The emergence of proportional reasoning from embodied interaction with a tablet application: An eyetracking study. In Chova, L. Gómez, Martínez, A. López, & Torres, I. Candel (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Technology, Education, and Development Conference (INTED 2015) (pp. 5732–5741). Madrid: IATED.Google Scholar
Shipley, T., Manduca, C., Resnick, I., & Schilling, C. (2009). Expertise in spatial visualization: Can geologists reverse time? Psychonomic Society, November, Boston.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 123–145.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10, 53–81.Google Scholar
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 404–434.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385–403.Google Scholar
Szafir, D. A., Haroz, S., Gleicher, M., & Franconeri, S. (2016). Four types of ensemble coding in data visualizations. Journal of Vision, 16, 11.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J. W. (2001). The entry point of face recognition: Evidence for face expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 534–543.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J. W., Kiefer, M., & Bukach, C. M. (2004). A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition, 93, B1–B9.Google Scholar
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97–159.Google Scholar
Wong, A. C. N., Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2009). Conditions for facelike expertise with objects: Becoming a ziggerin expert—but which type? Psychological Science, 20, 1108–1117.Google Scholar
Wong, Y. K., & Gauthier, I. (2010). A multimodal neural network recruited by expertise with musical notation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 695–713.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141–145.Google Scholar
Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.Google Scholar
Zemel, R. S., Behrmann, M., Mozer, M. C., & Bavelier, D. (2002). Experience-dependent perceptual grouping and object-based attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 202–217.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×