Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny

Visual Cognition

Volumn 5, Issue 1-2, 1998, Pages 49-79

  Hummel, John E ^a   Stankiewicz, Brian J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002616122     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713756775     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E.E. (1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming Perception, 20, 585-593.
3. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E.E. (1991b). Priming contour deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
4. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E.E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 121-133.
5. Biederman, I., &. Gerhardstein, P.C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for 3-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
6. Beiderman, I., & Gerhardstein, P.C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: A critical analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
7. Biederman, I., & Schiffrar, M.M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 640-645.
8. Bülthoff, H.H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 89, 60-64.
9. Bülthoff, H.H., Edelman, S.Y., & Tarr, M.J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cerebral Cortex, 3, 247-260.
10. Clowes, M.B. (1967). Perception, picture processing and computers. In N.L. Collins & D. Michie (Eds), Machine intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 181-197). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
11. Cooper, E.E., Biederman, I., & Hummel, J.E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191-214.
12. Dickenson, S.J., Pentland, A.P., & Rosenfeld, A. (1992). 3-D shape recovery using distributed aspect matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14, 174-198.
13. Edelman, S., Cutzu, F., & Duvdevani-Bar, S. (1996). Similarity to reference shapes as a basis for shape representation. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 260-265. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
14. Farah, M. (1992). Is an object an object an object: Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain-specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164-169.
15. Fodor, J.A., & Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In S. Pinker & J. Mehler (Eds). Connections and symbols (pp. 3-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Foster, D.H., & Ferraro, M. (1989). Visual gap and offset discrimination and its relation to categorical identification in brief line-element displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 771-784.
17. Hoffman, D.D. & Richards, W.A. (1985). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
18. Hummel, J.E., & Biederman, I. (1991). Binding by phase locked neural activity: Implications for a theory of visual attention. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Sarasota, FL, May.
19. Hummel, J.E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
20. Hummel, J.E., & Holyoak, K.J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
21. Hummel, J.E., & Stankiewicz, B.J. (1996a). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds). Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Hummel, J.E., & Stankiewicz, B.J. (1996b). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
23. Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M.A., & Kosslyn, S.M. (1984). Picture and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.
24. König, P., & Engel, A.K. (1995). Correlated firing in sensory-motor systems. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 511-519.
25. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101-124.
26. Logan, G.D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015-1036.
27. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
28. Olhausen, B.A., Anderson, C.H., & Van Essen, D.C. (1993). A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information. The Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 4700-4719.
29. Pinker, S. (1984). Visual cognition: An introduction. In S. Pinker (Ed.), Visual cognition (pp. 1-62). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
30. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A neural network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
31. Poggio, T., & Girosi, F. (1990). Regularization algorithms that are equivalent to multilayer networks. Science, 277, 978-982.
32. Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
33. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J.E. (in press). Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
34. Schneider, W.X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition, and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2, 331-375.
35. Stankiewicz, B.J., & Hummel, J.E. (1996). MetriCat: A representation for basic and subordinate-level classification. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 254-259. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
36. Stankiewicz, B.J., & Hummel, J.E. (in prep.). Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape.
37. Stankiewicz, B.J., Hummel, J.E., & Cooper, E.E. (in press). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of object shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
38. Tanaka, J.W., & Farah, M.J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 146A, 225-245.
39. Tarr, M.J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 55-82.
40. Tarr, M.J., & Bülthoff, H. (in press). Conditions for viewpoint-dependence and viewpoint-invariance: What mechanisms are used to recognize an object? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
41. Tipper, S.P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571-590.
42. Tipper, S.P., & Driver, J. (1988). Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli. Memory and Cognition, 16, 64-70.
43. Treisman, A. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 194-214.
44. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
45. Tresiman, A., & DeSchepper, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. in T. Inui & J.L. McClelland (Eds), Attention and performance XVI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169-193.
47. Vetter, T., Poggio, T., & Bulthoff, H.H. (1994). The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition. Current Biology, 4, 18-23.
48. von der Malsburg, C. (1981). The correlation theory of brain function. Internal Report 81-2. Department of Neurobiology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany.