Sentence examples for basic and superordinate levels from inspiring English sources

Figure 6 Some examples of images used in our experiments considering basic and superordinate levels of description.

They were thus considerably longer than in the superordinate A/nA tasks; globally, subjects were 40 ms slower to categorize birds as birds and 65 ms slower to categorize dogs as dogs, even though they were processing the same sets of images at both basic and superordinate levels.

The obtained results are comparable and in some cases better than the state-of-the-art approaches working on basic and superordinate level description of scenes [6, 8 10].

This allowed us to measure recovery from adaptation and conceptual tuning along 5 data points in each fMRI voxel, spanning Rosch's taxonomy of basic- and superordinate-level conceptual categories (Rosch et al. 1976; Rosch 1978).

The first element came from Murphy & Wisniewski [10], who reported that the speed advantage of basic over superordinate levels was reduced -although still present- when objects were presented in full scenes instead of the frequently used isolated objects on a neutral background.

This needs to be investigated further although expertise might have more effect on the distance between basic and subordinate representation than the distance between basic and superordinate representations.

All images of birds (n = 624) and dogs (n = 624) were seen once by each subject and processed either at the basic or the superordinate level.

Adopting a "branching approach," the CEFR describes finer distinctions within the three superordinate levels (A, basic; B, independent; and C, proficient) so that "the relatively small gains in language proficiency made within language programmes (achievement) can be captured and reported" (Green et al. 2012, p. 48).

Note that in the absence of non-targets from the same superordinate category, the task could be performed indistinctively at the basic or at the superordinate level.

The same effect was observed with dogs that were categorized less accurately at the basic than at the superordinate level (94.7% vs. 96.8%; χ2, p<0.05; paired t-test, p = 0.014, t = 2.723).

However, these observations concerned only the speed of access to the basic and subordinate levels; very few studies have questioned the prevalence of the basic level over the superordinate level.