One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects

Vision Research

Volumn 39, Issue 17, 1999, Pages 2885-2899

  Biederman, Irving ^a   Bar, Moshe ^b  

^a Neuroscience Graduate Program   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Geons; Nonaccidental properties; Object perception; Shape recognition; Shape representation; Viewpoint invariance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION; VISION; VISUAL ORIENTATION;

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

EID: 0033044801     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00309-5     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Biederman I. Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review. 94:1987;115-147.
2. Biederman I. Aspects and extensions of a theory of human image understanding. Pylyshyn Z. Computational processes in human vision. 1988;370-428 Ablex, New York.
3. Biederman I., Cooper E.E. Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception. 20:1991;585-593.
4. Biederman I., Cooper E.E. Priming contour-deleted images: evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology. 23:1991;393-419.
5. Biederman I., Cooper E.E. Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 18:1992;121-133.
6. Biederman I., Gerhardstein P.C. Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for 3 D viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 19:1993;1162-1182.
7. Biederman I., Gerhardstein P.C. Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 21:1995;1506-1514.
8. Biederman I., Bar M. Same-different matching of depth-rotated objects. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 39:1998;1113.
9. Biederman, I., Subramaniam, S., Bar, M., Kalocsai, P., & Fiser, J. (1999). Subordinate-level object classification reexamined. Psychological Research, (in press).
10. Cohen D., Kubovy M. Mental rotation, mental representation, and flat slopes. Cognitive Psychology. 25:1993;351-382.
11. Cooper E.E., Biederman I., Hummel J.E. Metric invariance in object recognition: a review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 46:1992;191-214.
12. Edelman S. Representation, similarity, and the chorus or prototypes. Minds and Machines. 5:1995;45-68.
13. Edelman S., Bülthoff H.H. Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of 3D objects. Vision Research. 32:1992;2385-4000.
14. Egeth H. Parallel versus serial processes in multidimensional discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics. 5:1966;341-346.
15. Haywood W.G., Tarr M.J. Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23:1997;1511-1521.
16. Hochberg J., Gellman L. The effect of landmark features on mental rotation times. Memory and Cognition. 5:1977;23-26.
17. Hummel J.E., Biederman I. Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review. 99:1992;480-517.
18. Humphrey G.K., Kahn S.C. Recognising novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 46:1992;170-190.
19. Intraub H. Conceptual masking: the effects of subsequent visual events on memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 10:1984;115-125.
20. Jacobs, D. W. (1989) Space efficient 3D model indexing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 439-444.
21. Jacobs D.W. What makes viewpoint invariant properties perceptually salient? 1997;NEC Research Institute, Princeton, NJ. Unpubl. manuscr.
22. Logothetis N.K., Pauls J., Bülthoff H.H., Poggio T. View-dependent object recognition by monkeys. Current Biology. 4:1994;401-414.
23. Lowe D. Perceptual organization and visual recognition. 1984;Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
24. Nowak L.G., Bullier J. The timing of information transfer in the visual system. Kaas J., Rockland K., Peters A. Extrastriate Cortex, Cerebral Cortex. 12:1997.
25. Poggio T., Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature. 343:1990;263-266.
26. Rock I., DiVita J. A case of viewer-centered perception. Cognitive Psychology. 19:1987;280-293.
27. Srinivas K. Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 19:1993;582-602.
28. Stankiewicz B.J., Hummel J.E., Cooper E.E. 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. 24:1998;732-744.
29. Tarr M.J., Bülthoff H.H. Is human object recognition better described be geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 21:1995;1494-1505.
30. Tarr M.J., Bülthoff H.H., Zabinski M., Volker B. To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across viewpoint? Psychological Science. 8:1997;282-289.
31. Tarr M.J., Williams P., Hayward W.G., Gauthier I. Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience. 1:1998;275-277.
32. Ullman S. High-level Vision. 1996;MIT, Cambridge, MA.
33. Vetter T., Poggio T. Symmetric 3D objects are an easy case for 2D object recognition. Spatial Vision. 8:1994;443-453.