View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 1052-1066

  Lawson, Rebecca ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; ROTATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; ROTATION;

EID: 0032132931     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03211939     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. BARTRAM, D. J. (1974). The role of visual and semantic codes in object naming. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 325-356.
2. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
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). Object recognition and laterality: Null effects. Neuropsychologia, 29, 685-694.
5. BIEDERMAN, I., & COOPER, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 13, 640-645.
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 & 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 & Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
8. BRUCE, V., & VALENTINE, T. (1985). Identity priming in the recognition of familiar faces. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 373-383.
9. BRUNAS, J., YOUNG, A. W., & ELLIS, A. W. (1990). Repetition priming from incomplete faces: Evidence for part to whole completion. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 43-56.
10. BRUNAS-WAGSTAFF, J., YOUNG, A. W., & ELLIS, A. W. (1992). Repetition priming follows spontaneous but not prompted recognition of familiar faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 423-454.
11. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-D view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
12. 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.
13. ELLIS, A. W., YOUNG, A. W., FLUDE, B. M., & HAY, D. C. (1987). Repetition priming of face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 193-210.
14. ELLIS, R., ALLPORT, D. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & COLLIS, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 775-796.
15. ENNS, J. T., & RENSINK, R. A. (1990a). Influence of scene-based properties on visual search. Science, 247, 721-723.
16. ENNS, J. T., & RENSINK, R. A. (1990b). Sensitivity to 3-D orientation in visual search. Psychological Science, 1, 323-326.
17. ENNS, J. T., & RENSINK, R. A. (1991). Preattentive recovery of 3-D orientation from line drawings. Psychological Review, 98, 335-351.
18. FARAH, M. J., ROCHLIN, R., & KLEIN, K. L. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Science, 18, 325-344.
19. HAYWARD, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 427-440.
20. 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 (pp. 429-442). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. 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.
22. HUMPHREY, G. K., & KHAN, S. C. (1992). Recognising novel views of 3-D objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170-190.
23. HUMPHREY, G. K., & LUPKER, S. J. (1993). Codes and operations in picture matching. Psychological Research, 55, 237-247.
24. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1984). Route to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 596-615.
25. JOHNSTON, R. A., BARRY, C., & WILLIAMS, C. (1996). Incomplete faces don't show the whole picture: Repetition priming from jumbled faced. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 775-796.
26. JOLICOEUR, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
27. JOLICOEUR, P., & MILLIKEN, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15, 200-210.
28. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1996). View-specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 395-416.
29. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (in press). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition.
30. MARR, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
31. PALMER, S., 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. ROCK, I., & DI VITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
33. ROCK, I., DI VITA, J., & BARBEITO, R. (1981). The effect on form perception of changing orientation in the third dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 719-732.
34. SRINIVAS, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 582-602.
35. SRINIVAS, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019-1036.
36. 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.
37. TARR, M. J., HAYWARD, W. G., GAUTHIER, I., & WILLIAMS, P. (1994, November). Geon recognition is viewpoint dependent. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
38. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-283.
39. WARREN, C., & MORTON, J. (1982). The effects of priming on picture recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 117-129.
40. WARRINGTON, E. K., & TAYLOR, A. M. (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex, 9, 152-164.
41. WARRINGTON, E. K., & TAYLOR, A. M. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition. Perception, 7, 695-705.
42. WHEELDON, L. R., & MONSELL, S. (1992). The locus of repetition priming of spoken word production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 723-761.