The phrase "attributed object" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to programming, data analysis, or discussions about objects in a philosophical or artistic sense, where ownership or association is being discussed.
Example: "In the context of the database, the attributed object refers to the specific data entry that is linked to the user profile."
Alternatives: "associated object" or "designated object".
Our incremental analysis algorithms exploit the attributed objects and function-valued attributes provided by our metalanguage, mapping these expressive notations onto a fine-grained incremental implementation.
Convergent are the findings of Johnson and Olshausen [31] who attributed object-related changes in ERP waveforms prior to 137 ms to early processing of featural differences and late changes post 150 ms to the recognition process itself.
These short forms can be used in attribute lists, dictionaries and strings: e.g. Attribute objects are structures for setting and retrieving attribute values of objects.
To bridge the semantic gap between the predictive power of computational saliency models and human behavior, we propose a new saliency architecture that incorporates information at three layers: pixel-level image attributes, object-level attributes, and semantic-level attributes.
In order for properties to be attributed to objects in experience, the object must be represented in some way.
For each type of Pthreads object there is a corresponding attribute object.
This attribute object is an extended argument list to the related object create or initialize function.
Hyper graph vertex corresponds to the static entry with attributes object monitoring and data processing unit.
We explored this possibility using model simulations and obtained a concrete prediction that rapid serial presentation of three-attribute objects sharing two features in common with an unpresented three-attribute object (target) will produce an illusory perception of the target.
This explanation, however, is inconsistent with the finding in Experiment 1 that an illusory three-attribute object was perceived in condition 2, in which three features of the object were never presented simultaneously.
Although there were considerable differences between subjects, many subjects clearly perceived a three-attribute object in the test condition and did not notice that it was not actually presented to them.
