Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 480-489

  Burgund, E Darcy ^a   Marsolek, Chad J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RECOGNITION; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; DOMINANCE, CEREBRAL; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0034279411     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03214360     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. BALLARD, D. H. (1986). Cortical connections and parallel processing: Structure and function. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 9, 67-120.
2. BARTRAM, D. J. (1976). Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 4, 593-602.
3. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. BIEDERMAN, I., & COOPER, E. E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
8. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain & Cognition, 35, 239-258.
9. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (1999a). Separable mechanisms for initial storage of unfamiliar three-dimensional objects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (1999b). When planar reorientations do and do not affect priming for unfamiliar objects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11. CHURCHLAND, P. S., & SEJNOWSKI, T. J. (1992). The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. COHEN, J., MACWHINNEY, B., FLATT, M., & PROVOST, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh Computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
13. COHEN, N. J., & EICHENBAUM, H. (1993). Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. COOPER, L. A., SCHACTER, D. L., BALLESTEROS, S., & MOORE, C. (1992). Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of size and reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 43-57.
15. EDELMAN, S. (1998). Representation is representation of similarities. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 449-498.
16. 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.
17. ELLIS, R., & ALLPORT, D. A. (1986). Multiple levels of representation for visual objects: A behavioural study. In A. G. Cohen & J. R. Thomas (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and its applications (pp. 245-257). New York: Wiley.
18. ELLIS, R., ALLPORT, D. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & COLLIS, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 775-796.
19. FARAH, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. FARAH, M. J. (1991). Patterns of co-occurrence among the associative agnosias: Implications for visual object representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 1-19.
21. FARAH, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164-169.
22. GAUTHIER, I., & TARR, M. J. (1997). Becoming a "greeble" expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37, 1673-1682.
23. HAYWARD, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 24, 427-440.
24. HAYWARD, W. G., & TARR, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1511-1521.
25. HINTON, G. E., MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 77-109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. HUMMEL, J. E., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
27. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
28. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model for visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
29. HUMPHREY, G. K., & JOLICŒUR, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 137-159.
30. HUMPHREY, G. K., & KHAN, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170-190.
31. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 385-415.
32. JOLICŒUR, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory. Mind & Language, 5, 387-410.
33. KOENDERINK, J. J. (1987). An internal representation for solid shape based on the topological properties of the apparent contour. In W. Richards & S. Ullman (Eds.), Image understanding 1985-86 (pp. 257-285). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34. 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.
35. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1052-1066.
36. LOGOTHETIS, N. K., & SHEINBERG, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 577-621.
37. MARK, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
38. MARSOLEK, C. J. (1995). Abstract-visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 375-386.
39. MARSOLEK, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition. Psychological Science 10, 111-118.
40. MARSOLEK, C. J., & BURGUND, E. D. (1997). Computational analyses and hemispheric asymmetries in visual-form recognition. In S. Christman (Ed.), Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 125-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
41. MARSOLEK, C. J., & HUDSON, T. E. (1999). Task and stimulus demands influence letter-case specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Laterality, 4, 127-147.
42. MARSOLEK, C. J., SCHACTER, D. L., & NICHOLAS, C. D. (1996). Form-specific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere. Memory & Cognition, 24, 539-556.
43. MCCLELLAND, J. L., MCNAUGHTON, B. L., & O'REILLY, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review 102, 419-457.
44. OLDFIELD, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
45. PALMER, S., ROSCH, E., & CHASE, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. POGGIO, T., & EDELMAN, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
47. POGGIO, T. A., & HURLBERT, A. (1994). Observations on cortical mechanisms for object recognition and learning. In C. Koch & J. L. Davis (Eds.), Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain (pp. 153-182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. ROCK, I., & DIVITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
49. SQUIRE, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review 99, 195-231.
50. SRINIVAS, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 582-602.
51. SRINIVAS, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019-1036.
52. TANAKA, J. W., & SENGCO, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 583-592.
53. TANAKA, K. (1993). Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition Science, 262, 685-688.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. TARR, M. J., BÜLTHOFF, H. H., ZABINSKI, M., & BLANZ, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science, 8, 282-289.
57. ULLMAN, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
58. ULLMAN, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. VERFAILLIE, K., & BOUTSEN, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 925-961.
60. WAGEMANS, J., GOOL, L., & LAMOTE, C. (1996). The visual system's measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant. Psychological Science, 7, 232-236.
61. WARRINGTON, E. K., & TAYLOR, A. M. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition. Perception, 7, 695-705.