While scene context is known to facilitate object recognition, little is known about whichcontextual “ingredients” are at the heart of this phenomenon. Here, we address the question ofwhether the materials that frequently occur in scenes (e.g., tiles in bathroom) associated withspecific objects (e.g., a perfume) are relevant for processing of that object. To this end, wepresented photographs of consistent and inconsistent objects (e.g., perfume vs. pinecone)superimposed on scenes (e.g., bathroom) and close-ups of materials (e.g., tiles). In Experiment1, consistent objects on scenes were named more accurately than inconsistent ones, while therewas only a marginal consistency effect for objects on materials. Also, we did not find anyconsistency effect for scrambled materials that served as color control condition. In Experiment2, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) and found N300/N400 responses – markers ofsemantic violations – for objects on inconsistent relative to consistent scenes. Critically, objectson materials triggered N300/N400 responses of similar magnitudes. Our findings show thatcontextual materials indeed affect object processing – even in the absence of spatial scenestructure and object content – suggesting that material is one of the contextual “ingredients”driving scene context effects.
Scene context limits processing to target-consistent regions without changing object processing rates in efficient search tasks
