An experimental comparison of viewpoint-specific and viewpoint-independent models of object representation

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 792-824

  Johnston, Michael B ^a   Hayes, Anthony ^b  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION;

ADULT; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0034251848     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713755903     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Biederman, I. (1985). Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Processing, 32, 29-73.
2. Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. (1993). Recognising depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
3. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. (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.
4. Braunstein, M.L., Hoffman, D.D., & Saidpour, A. (1989). Parts of visual objects: An experimental test of the minima rule. Perception, 18, 817-826.
5. Bülthoff, H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-D view-interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 89, 60-64.
6. Bülthoff., H., Edelman, S., & Tarr, M. (1994). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? (Artificial intelligence laboratory memorandum number 1479). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
7. Corballis, M.C., & Nagourney, B. (1978). Latency to categorise disoriented alphanumeric characters as letters or digits. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 32, 186-188.
8. Corballis, M.C., Zbrodoff, N.J., Shetzer, L.I., & Butler, P.B. (1978). Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits. Memory and Cognition, 6, 98-107.
9. De Vries, S.C., Kappers, A.M.L., & Koenderink, J.J. (1993). Shape from stereo: A systematic approach using quadratic surfaces. Perception and Psychophysics, 53, 71-80.
10. Edelman, S. (1995). Class similarity and viewpoint invariance in the recognition of 3D objects. Biological Cybernetics, 72, 207-220.
11. Edelman, S., Bülthoff, H., & Weinshall, D. (1989). Stimulus familiarity determines recognition strategy for novel 3D objects. (Artificial intelligence laboratory memorandum 1138). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
12. Eley, M.G. (1982). Identifying rotated letter-like symbols. Memory and Cognition, 10, 25-32.
13. Farah, M.J., & Hammond, K.M. (1988). Mental rotation and orientation-invariant object recognition: Dissociable processes. Cognition, 29, 29-46.
14. Hayward, W.G., & Tarr, M.J. (1977). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1511-1521.
15. Hoffman, D.D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition, Cognition, 18, 65-96.
16. Hummel, J., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
17. Humphrey, G.K., & Khan, S.C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170-191.
18. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 13, 289-303.
19. Jolicoeur, P. (1988). Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 461-478.
20. Jolicoeur, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory. Mind and Language, 5, 387-410.
21. Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1990). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
23. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H.K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organisation of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 200, 269-294.
24. McMullen, P.A., & Jolicoeur, P. (1992). Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 807-820.
25. Mervis, C.B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorisation of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89-115.
26. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
27. Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
28. Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
29. Shepard, R., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
30. Tarr, M.J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognise them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 55-82.
31. Tarr, M.J., & Bülthoff, H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon-structural-description theory or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gehardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
32. Tarr, M.J., Bülthoff, H., Zabinski, M., Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science, 8, 282-289.
33. Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
34. Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centred reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
35. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
36. Ullman, S., & Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysts and Machine Intelligence, 13, 992-1005.
37. White, M.J. (1980). Naming and categorisation of tilted alphanumeric characters do not require mental rotation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Association, 15, 153-156.