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

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 732-744

  Stankiewicz, Brian J ^a,b   Hummel, John E ^a   Cooper, Eric E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c University of Minnesota ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; TIME;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0032090290     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.732     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Biederman, I., Buckle, T. W., Teitelbaum, R. C., & Klatsky, G. J. (1988). Object search in nonscene displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 456-467.
3. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception, 20, 585-593.
4. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991b). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
5. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 121-133.
6. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
7. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
8. Bundesen, C., & Larsen, A. (1975). Visual transformation of size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 214-220.
9. 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.
10. Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes. Psychological Review, 95, 115-123.
11. Dickinson, 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.
12. Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
13. Edelman, S., & Weinshall, D. (1991). A self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3-D objects. Biological Cybernetics, 64, 209-219.
14. Ellis, R., & Allport, D. A. (1986). Multiple levels of representation for visual objects: A behavioural study. In A. G. Cohen & J. R. Thomas (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and its applications (pp. 245-257). New York: Wiley.
15. Ellis, R., Allport, D. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Collis, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 41(A), 775-796.
16. Enns, J. T. (1992). Sensitivity of early human vision to 3-D orientation in line drawings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 143-169.
17. Farah, M. J. (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.
18. Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S., & Shimojo, S. (1993a). Visual attention revealed by an illusion motion. Neuroscience Research, 18, 11-18.
19. Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S., & Shimojo, S. (1993b). Voluntary and stimulus-induced attention detected as motion sensation. Perception, 22, 517-526.
20. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1990). Dynamic binding: A basis for the representation of shape by neural networks. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 614-621). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1991, May). 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.
22. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
23. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
25. Jolicoeur, P. (1992). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory. In E. W. Humphrey (Ed.), Understanding vision: An interdisciplinary perspective. Readings in mind and language 1 (pp. 180-198). London: Blackwell.
26. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1986). Variations in size of the visual field in which targets are presented: An attentional range effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 188-200.
27. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101-124.
28. Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015-1036.
29. 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.
30. Olshausen, 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. Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 4700-4719.
31. Palmer, S. E., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
33. Quinlan, P. T. (1991). Differing approaches to two-dimensional shape recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 224-241.
34. Ruthruff, E., & Miller, J. (1995). Negative priming depends on ease of selection. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 715-723.
35. Seibert, M., & Waxman, A. M. (1992). Adaptive 3-D object recognition from multiple views. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14, 107-124.
36. Srinivas, K. (1996). Size and reflection effects in priming: A test of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 441-452.
37. Stankiewicz, B. J. (1997). The role of attention on viewpoint-invariant object recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
38. Sternberg, S. (1969). Memory scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments. American Scientist, 57, 421-457.
39. Sutherland, N. S. (1979). The representation of three-dimensional objects. Nature, 278, 395-398.
40. 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.
41. 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 and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
42. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-283.
43. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
44. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 37(A), 571-590.
45. 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 & Cognition, 16, 64-70.
46. Treisman, A., & DeSchepper, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. In Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
48. Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107-141.
49. Ullman, S., & Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 992-1006.
50. Vetter, T., & Poggio, T. (1994). Symmetric 3D objects are an easy case for 2D object recognition. Special Issue: The perception of symmetry: Part I. Theoretical aspects. Spatial Vision, 8, 443-453.
51. Winston, P. H. (1975). Learning structural descriptions from examples. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 157-209). New York: Academic Press.
52. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419-433.