Object identification as a function of discriminability and learning presentations: The effect of stimulus similarity and canonical frame alignment on aircraft identification

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 148-157

  Ashworth III, Alan R S ^a,c   Dror, Itiel E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ARTICLE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0034199559     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.148     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: The oblique effect in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266-278.
2. Ashworth, A. R. S., III & Robbins, R. D. (1996). Visual homogeneity affects orientation sensitivity. Psychonomic Abstracts, 1, 63.
3. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. 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.
5. Cohen, D., & Kubovy, M. (1993). Mental rotation, mental representation, and flat slopes. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 351-382.
6. Dror, I. E., Ashworth, A. R. S., III, Schreiner, C. S., Robbins, R. D., & Snooks, S. F. (1997). The primacy effect on identification: Initial presentations during training establish long lasting representations. Psychonomic Abstracts, 2, 64.
7. Shiffrar, M. M., & Shepard, R. N. (1991). Comparison of cube rotations around axes inclined relative to the environment or to the cube. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 44-54.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependency in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
11. Whitmore, P. G., Rankin, W. C., Baldwin, R. O., & Garcia, S. (1972). Studies of aircraft recognition training (Human Resources Research Organization Technical Report 72-5). Fort Bliss, TX: Human Resources Research Organization Division 5 (Air Defense).