The contribution of qualitative and quantitative shape features to object recognition across changes of view

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 1056-1067

  Liter, Jeffrey C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b c/o William M Mercer Inc ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LONG TERM MEMORY; MENTAL TASK; QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; THEORY; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0031754653     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03201183     Document Type: Article

References (34)

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 object 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 & Performance, 18, 121-133.
5. BIEDERMAN, I., & GERHARDSTEIN, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
6. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
7. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1993). Evaluating object recognition theories by computer graphics psychophysics. In T. A. Poggio & D. A. Glaser (Eds.), Exploring brain functions: Models in neuroscience (pp. 139-164). New York: Wiley.
8. EDELMAN, S. (1991). Features of recognition (Tech. Rep. fCS-TR10). Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
9. EDELMAN, S., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
10. ELEY, M. G. (1982). Identifying rotated letter-like symbols. Memory & Cognition, 10, 25-32.
11. FARAH, M. J., ROCHLIN, R., & KLEIN, K. L. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Science, 18, 325-344.
12. GASKINS, T. (1992). PHIGS programming manual. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
13. HUMMEL, J. E., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
14. JOLICOEUR, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory. Mind & Language, 5, 387-410.
15. LIU, Z., KERSTEN, D., & KNILL, D. C. (in press). Dissociating stimulus information from internal representation - a case study in object recognition. Vision Research.
16. LOFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
17. MARASCUILO, L. A. (1970). Extensions of the significance test for one-parameter signal detection hypotheses. Psychometrika, 35, 237-243.
18. MARR, D., & NISHIHARA, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 200, 269-294.
19. POGGIO, T., & EDELMAN, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
20. POGGIO, T., & GIROSI, F. (1990). Regularization algorithms for learning that are equivalent to multilayer networks. Science, 247, 978-982.
21. ROCK, I., & DIVITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
22. ROCK, I., DIVITA, J., & BARBEITO, R. (1981). The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 719-732.
23. SHEPARD, R. N., & COOPER, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. SKLAR, E., BÜLTHOFF, H. H., EDELMAN, S., & BASRI, R. (1993). Generalization of object recognition across stimulus rotation and deformation. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 34(4, Suppl.), 1081.
25. SRINIVAS, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 582-602.
26. SRINIVAS, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019-1036.
27. TAKANO, Y. (1989). Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1-59.
28. 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 & Review, 2, 55-82.
29. TARR, M. J., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
30. TARR, M. J., BÜLTHOFF, H. H., ZABINSKI, M., & BLANZ, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science, 8, 282-289.
31. TARR, M. J., HAYWARD, W. G., GAUTHIER, I., & WILLIAMS, P. (1994, November). Geon recognition is viewpoint dependent. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
32. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
33. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
34. TVERSKY, B., & HEMENWAY, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169-193.