2D observers for human 3D object recognition?

Vision Research

Volumn 38, Issue 15-16, 1998, Pages 2507-2519

  Liu, Zili ^a   Kersten, Daniel ^b  

^a NEC LABORATORIES AMERICA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Affine transformation; Ideal observer; Object recognition; Object representation; Template matching

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; MEMORY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS;

EID: 0031877114     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00063-7     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Liu Z., Knill D.C., Kersten D. Object classification for human and ideal observers. Vision Res. 35:1995;549-568.
2. Rock I., DiVita J. A case of viewer-cantered object perception. Cognit. Psychol. 19:1987;280-293.
3. Tarr M.J., Pinker S. When does human object recognition use a viewer-cantered reference frame? Psychol. Sci. 1:1990;253-256.
4. Bülthoff H.H., Edelman S. Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 89:1992;60-64.
5. Edelman S., Bülthoff H.H. Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Res. 32:1992;2385-2400.
6. Biederman I., Gerhardstein P.C. Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. J. Exp. Psychol. Human Percept. Perform. 19:1993;1162-1182.
7. Ullman S. High-level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition. 1996;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8. Poggio T., Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature. 343:1990;263-266.
9. Alter T.D. Three-dimensional pose from three points using weak-perspective. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 16:1994;802-808.
10. Basri R. Paraperspective≡affine. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 19:1996;169-179.
11. Werman M., Weinshall D. Similarity and affine invariant distances between 2D point sets. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 17:1995;810-814.
12. Bennett B.M., Hoffman D.D., Prakash C. Recognition polynomials. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 10:1993;759-764.
13. Ullman S. The interpretation of structure from motion. Proc. R. Soc. London B. 203:1979;405-426.
14. Weinshall D. Model-based invariants for 3D vision. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 10:1992;27-42.
15. S. Ullman, R. Basri, Recognition by linear combinations of models, A.I. Laboratory Technical Report 1152, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
16. Ullman S., Basri R. Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 13:1991;992-1006.
17. Bennett B.M., Hoffman D.D., Nicola J.E. Structure from two orthographic views of rigid motion. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 6:1989;1052-1069.
18. Huang T.S., Lee C.H. Motion and structure from orthographic projections. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 2:1989;536-540.
19. C. Tomasi, T. Kanade, Shape and motion without depth, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computer Vision, Osaka, Japan, 1990.
20. Watson A.B., Pelli D.G. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept. Psychophys. 33:1983;113-120.
21. Fisher R.A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 1925;Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
22. Hays W.L. Statistics. 1988;Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
23. Basri R., Weinshall D. Distance metric between 3D models and 2D images for recognition and classification. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 18:1996;465-470.
24. Liu Z. Viewpoint-dependency in object representation and recognition. Spat. Vis. 9:1996;491-521. Special Issue on Perceptual Learning and Adaptation in Man and Machine.
25. Tarr M.J., Bülthoff H.H., Zabinski M., Blanz V. To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychol. Sci. 8:1997;282-289.