The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology

Visual Cognition

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 165-195

  Lawson, Rebecca ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000150986     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713756808     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P.C. (1993). Recognising depth-rotated objects: Evidence for 3-D viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
3. Boucart, M., & Humphreys, G.W. (1992). Global shape cannot be attended without object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 785-806.
4. Hayward, W.G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 427-440.
5. Humphrey, G.K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1988). Visual object identification: Some effects of image foreshortening and monocular depth cues. In Z.W. Pylyshyn (Ed.), Computational processes in human vision: An interdisciplinary perspective. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6. Humphrey, G.K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). Visual object identification: Some effects of image foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 137-159.
7. Humphreys, G.W., & Riddoch, M.J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 385-415.
8. Humphreys, G.W., Riddoch, M.J., & Quinlan, P.T. (1985). Interactive processes in perceptual organisation: Evidence from visual agnosia. In M.I. Posner, & O.S. Marin (Eds), Attention and Performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
9. Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G.W. (1996). View-specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 395-416.
10. Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G.W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 1052-1066.
11. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
12. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds), Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
13. Riddoch, M.J., & Humphreys, G.W. (1986). Neurological impairments of visual object constancy: The effects of orientation and size disparities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 207-224.
14. Riddoch, M.J., & Humphreys, G.W. (1987). A case of integrative visual agnosia. Brain, 110, 1431-1462.
15. Srinivas, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 582-602.
16. Srinivas, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1019-1036.
17. Warrington, E.K., & James, M. (1986). Visual object recognition in patients with right hemisphere lesions: Axes or features? Perception, 15, 355-366.
18. Warrington, E.K., & Taylor, A.M. (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex, 9, 152-164.
19. Warrington, E.K.,& Taylor, AM. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition. Perception, 7, 695-705.
20. Willats, J. (1992). Seeing lumps, sticks and slabs in silhouettes. Perception, 21, 481-496.