It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Size Does Matter

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:43 AM
Very interesting research - helps us understand ourselves and for robotics too. Also, I just like the title.

Researchers have discovered how the brain broadly characterizes objects by size, revealing a fundamental insight into how we interact with the world.

The brain sees a qualitative difference between “small” objects—ones we usually pick up, such as paperclips or strawberries—and “large” objects—ones we use our bodies to interact with, such as chairs or cars. While researchers have previously identified brain regions that recognize specific objects like faces and letters, this discovery, published yesterday (June 21) in Neuron, is one of the first documented “rules” about how people interpret the world around them.

“This paper stands out in that it found a very large-scale organization that covers just about all the parts of the visual cortex that are responsive to shape of any kind,” said visual neuroscientist Ed Connor, director of the Zanvyl Krieger Mind/Brain Institute at Johns Hopkins University who was not involved in the study. “Instead of a finding of a small area of specialization, they are describing an overall organizing principle.”

The original paper:

A Real-World Size Organization of Object Responses in Occipitotemporal Cortex


* Large-scale organization of big and small object responses across the cortex
* New functional regions show robust response differences between big and small objects
* Regions are tolerant to retinal size changes and activate during mental imagery
* We propose real-world size is an organizing dimension of object representation


While there are selective regions of occipitotemporal cortex that respond to faces, letters, and bodies, the large-scale neural organization of most object categories remains unknown. Here, we find that object representations can be differentiated along the ventral temporal cortex by their real-world size. In a functional neuroimaging experiment, observers were shown pictures of big and small real-world objects (e.g., table, bathtub; paperclip, cup), presented at the same retinal size. We observed a consistent medial-to-lateral organization of big and small object preferences in the ventral temporal cortex, mirrored along the lateral surface. Regions in the lateral-occipital, inferotemporal, and parahippocampal cortices showed strong peaks of differential real-world size selectivity and maintained these preferences over changes in retinal size and in mental imagery. These data demonstrate that the real-world size of objects can provide insight into the spatial topography of object representation.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:01 PM
"Size Does Matter"

oh baby....!

edit: i honestly was hoping for a slightly more.... well. naughty thread lol... because its just fun haha...


on topic: well i think that everyone thinks in their own unique way that may or may not be similar to the common or "normal" train of thought.

in other words, i completely disagree with this "study"

because it makes a claim that can not be proved or disproved, and is mostly irrelevant in a weird way..

no offence.

its kind of like this-

peace, not trying to troll or anything, i just disagree.

edit on 25-6-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by soficrow

Jeez what next....This just in! Study shows that water is wet, and the brain processes things differently when you jump in a pool of water, then when your out of it.

I suppose it makes sense as there trying to get more insight into how human minds and robots and programs can meld configure and interpret things as to work in sync. But ya who would of thunk it that size does matter.

On that note how would you go about installing into a robot who has never felt water and does not have a concept of getting wet a process of interpreting all that. Not only just a basic concept/warning of water, but you know a actual full on experience that any flesh and bone human would get in the same situation. I suppose you can always just install sensors, and program them to emulate and simulate based on extrapolated data.

But in all it wont be the same thing at all...But then again! isn't everything just basic programming in a sort of way? Even the process of evolution is just coding that nature has installed into each and everyone of the creatures on this globe, and everything and every-sense we have today is just the updated version that we have, of the versions our ancestors had. And all that has been brought upon by trial and error via our senses both physical and mental, and is constantly being updated as we are being bombarded by both external stimuli and by internal stimuli and thoughts, its all basically just data types we are constantly processing.

The process of due elimination, conclusion and revaluation, constant programming and reprogramming. The only real difference between humans and animals such as chimpanzees other then the obvious physical ones. Is that we are capable to some degree to program ourselves outside of the confines of basic nature, and they are not, there still trapped in there little worlds.

But then again, are we? Or are we to just trapped in a different world, a bit bigger and vaster world but still just a more expanded version of our hairy cousins the chimpanzees. In all! that to, the scope of it all and the levels to it all, can just be an interpretation as all just part of the due process. Once this pond was our world and all we knew, then we found out that pond lead to a river, and then after some time that we even found out that the river even lead into an ocean, and even then after more time. That ocean we discovered was part of a system a global system, and then after much deliberation we found out that even the global system was part of a galactic system, and so on etc.

Its merely our extended concepts and the fact that we can grasp those concepts that separates us from the animals such as chimpanzees, and those metal concepts are expressed in out physical makeups as well, we may not notice it or we may not think about it in any discernible way but it must be so.

And in a analog universe, there is a duality and a always constant comparison and link. So there to is a duality and constant comparison and link between to the mind and body operations. As one transforms so to must the other mirror it in a way, and if anything DNA is just a print out of that process, a chart, a toll, a tally list if you will. Of all that came before it, and all that has happened, much more then it is a copy or blue print of what we are in our current state, its a copy of what we were. Because that current state is ever so slightly always in a state of flux and change.

In all its seems most look at the whole DNA thing like its a sea, or even a lake, something that you can reach into and has always been there and something that you can fish out what you want from, and even something that you can change at a whim. But in truth even if it is that. Its also a river, something that is always flowing, albeit the flow is slow and over ages and millennias. But still its a thing in motion. So in all you can not change anything in the overall without interrupting that flow, any major change would be like throwing a monkey ranch into the cogs of an engine. It would not respond well, it would even break the whole chain and flow of things, it would be literally a fatal thing to do. That is to have any major change in a shot time span.

But then again everything is trial and error, in the scope of things, so by trial and error it should correct itself over time.
edit on 28-7-2012 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in