The bare bones of object recognition: Implications from a case of object recognition impairment

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 279-292

  Davidoff, J ^a   Warrington, E K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b National Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; AGNOSIA; ARTICLE; BRAIN INFARCTION; CASE REPORT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SEMANTICS; STROKE;

AGED; CEREBRAL CORTEX; CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDERS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MEMORY; MEMORY DISORDERS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0032912489     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00076-1     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Biederman I. Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 1987;94:115-45.
2. Biederman I, Cooper EE. Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception 1991;20:583-93.
3. Biederman I, Cooper EE. Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992;18:121-33.
4. Biederman I, Ju G. Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology 1988;20:38-64.
5. Bloom P, Peterson MA, Nadel L, Garrett MF, editors. Language and space. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1996.
6. Cooper LA, Schacter DL, Ballesteros S, Moore C. Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: effects of size and reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1992;18:43-57.
7. Davidoff J, De Bleser R. A case study of photograph anomia: impaired picture naming with preserved object naming and reading. Brain and Cognition 1994;24:1-23.
8. Davidoff J, Donnelly N. Object superiority: a comparison of complete and part probes. Acta Psychologica 1990;73:225-43.
9. Donnelly N, Davidoff J. Parts and wholes: Do houses differ from faces? Visual Cognition, in press.
10. Dvorine. Dvorine psuedo-isochromatic plates 2nd ed. Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1953.
11. Efron R. What is perception? In: Cohen RS, Wartofsky M, editors. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. vol 4. New York: Humanities Press, 1968:137-73.
12. Farah MJ, Hammond KM. Mental rotation and orientation-invariant object recognition: dissociable processes. Cognition 1988;29:29-46.
13. Gibson BG, Peterson MA. Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cueing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1994;20:299-316.
14. Gold M, Adair JC, Jacobs DH, Heilman KM. Right-left confusion in Gerstmann's syndrome: a model of body centred spatial orientation. Cortex 1995;31:267-83.
15. Goldenberg G, Artner C. Visual imagery and knowledge about the visual appearance of objects in patients with posterior cerebral artery lesions. Brain and Cognition 1991;15:160-86.
16. Grossberg, S, Mingolla E. Neural dynamics of form perception: boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. Psychological Review 1985;92:173-211.
17. Homa D, Haver B, Schwartz T. Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory and Cognition 1976;4:176-85.
18. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. Routes to object constancy: implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1984;26A:385-415.
19. Jackendoff R. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
20. Jolicoeur P. Time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition 1985;13:289-303.
21. Kartsounis LD, Warrington EK. A dissociation of shape discrimination and figure-ground perception in a patient with normal acuity. Neuropsychologia 1991;29:969-80.
22. Kay J, Lesser R, Coltheart M. Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (PALPA). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992.
23. Kosslyn SM, Alpert NM, Thompson WL, Chabris CF, Rauch SL, Anderson AK. Identifying objects seen from different viewpoints: A PET investigation. Brain 1994;117:1055-71.
24. Kosslyn SM, Flynn RA, Amsterdam JB, Wang G. Components of high-level vision: a cognitive neuroscience analysis and accounts of neurological syndromes. Cognition 1990;34:203-77.
25. Marr D. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982.
26. Marsolek CJ. Abstract visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995;21:375-86.
27. McCarthy R, Warrington EK. Visual associative agnosia: a clinico-anatomical study of a single case. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1986;49:1233-40.
28. McKenna P, Warrington EK. The graded naming test. Windsor: Nelson, 1983.
29. Navon D. Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology 1977;9:353-83.
30. Neisser U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1967.
31. Nelson HE, Willison JR. The national adult reading test manual 2nd ed. Windsor: NFER-Nelson, 1992.
32. Newcombe, F. Missile wounds of the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
33. Ostergaard AL, Davidoff J. Some effects of color on naming and recognition of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1985;11:579-87.
34. Palmer SE, Rosch E, Chase P. Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In: Long J, Baddeley AD, editors. Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.
35. Perrett DI, Smith PJA, Potter DD, Mistlin AJ, Head AS, Milner AD, Jeeves MA. Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 1985;223:293-317.
36. Podrouzek KW, Modigliani V, Di Lollo V. Lateral masking as a determinant of global dominance. Perception 1992;21:705-16.
37. Poggio T, Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature 1990;343:263-6.
38. Pomerantz JR. Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1983;112:516-40.
39. Price CJ, Humphreys GW. The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Quarterly Journal of Psychology 1989;41A:797-827.
40. Reicher GM. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1969;81:274-80.
41. Rock I., Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
42. Rosch E, Mervis CB, Gray WD, Johnson DM, Boyes-Braem P. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 1976;8:382-439.
43. Rudge P, Warrington EK. Selective impairment of memory and visual perception in splenial tumours. Brain 1991;114:349-60.
44. Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber H-L. Correlates of impaired orientation in personal and extrapersonal space. Brain 1963;86:747-72.
45. Sergent J, Lorber E. Perceptual categorization in the cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Cognition 1983;2:39-54.
46. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart MA. A standardised set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1980;6:174-215.
47. Tarr MJ, Buelthoff HH. Conditions for viewpoint dependence and viewpoint invariance. What mechanisms are used to recognize an object? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995;21:1496-507.
48. Thurstone TG, Jeffrey TE. Flags: A test of space thinking. Chicago: Industrial Relations Center, 1956.
49. Turnbull OH, Beschin N, Della Sala S. Agnosia for object orientation: implications for theories of object recognition. Neuropsychologia 1997;35:153-63.
50. Turnbull OH, Laws KR, McCarthy RA. Object recognition without knowledge of object orientation. Cortex 1995;31:387-95.
51. Turnbull OH, McCarthy RA. Failure to discriminate between mirror-image objects: a case of viewpoint-independent object recognition? Neurocase 1996a;2:63-72.
52. Turnbull OH, McCarthy RA. When is a view unusual? a single case study of orientation-dependent visual agnosia. Brain Research Bulletin 1996b;40:497-503.
53. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M. Two cortical visual systems. In: Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW, editors. Analysis of visual behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982:549-86.
54. Vitkovitch M, Humphreys GW, Lloyd-Jones TJ. On naming a giraffe a zebra: picture naming errors across different categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1993;19:243-59.
55. Walsh V, Butler SR. The effects of visual cortex lesions on the perception of rotated shapes. Behavioural Brain Research 1986;76:127-42.
56. Warrington EK, James M. Visual object recognition in patients with right-hemisphere lesions: axes or features. Perception 1986;15:355-66.
57. Warrington EK, James M. Visual apperceptive agnosia: a clinicoanatomical study of three cases. Cortex 1988;24:13-32.
58. Warrington EK, James M. The visual object and space perception battery. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley, 1991.
59. Warrington EK, Rabin P. Perceptual matching in patients with cerebral lesions. Neuropsychologia 1970;8:475-87.
60. Warrington EK, Rudge P. A comment on apperceptive agnosia. Brain and Cognition 1995;28:173-7.
61. Warrington EK, Taylor AM. The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex 1973;9:152-64.
62. Warrington EK, Taylor AM. Two categorical stages of object recognition. Perception 1978;7:695-705.