The effects of context on learning to identify plane-misoriented views of familiar objects

Visual Cognition

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 795-821

  Lawson, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL ORIENTATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL SYSTEM FUNCTION; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION;

EID: 0142186740     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280344000086     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253-274.
2. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
3. Hayward, W. G., & Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7-12.
4. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 13, 289-303.
5. Jolicoeur, P. (1990). Identification of misoriented objects: A dual systems theory. Mind and Language, 5, 387-410.
6. Jolicoeur, P., & Milliken, B. (1989). Identification of misoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 200-210.
7. Jordan, K., & Huntsman, L. A. (1990). Image rotation of misoriented letter strings: Effects of orientation cueing and repetition. Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 363-374.
8. Jordan, K., & Huntsman, L. A. (1995). Repetition of misoriented words reduces lexical-decision response times at repeated and novel orientations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 963-977.
9. Lawson, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologia, 102, 221-245.
10. Lawson, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (1998). The effects of plane rotation on the recognition of brief masked pictures of familiar objects. Memory and Cognition, 26, 791-803.
11. Lawson, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Recognition thresholds for plane-misoriented pictures of familiar objects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 17-41.
12. Murray, J. E. (1995a). Imagining and naming rotated objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 239-243.
13. Murray, J. E. (1995b). The role of attention in the shift from orientation-dependent to orientation-invariant identification of disoriented objects. Memory and Cognition, 23, 49-58.
14. Murray, J. E. (1998). Is entry-level recognition viewpoint-invariant or viewpoint-dependent? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 300-304.
15. Newell, F. N. (1998). Stimulus context and view dependence in object recognition. Perception, 27, 47-68.
16. Rossion, B., Gauthier, I., Goffaux, V., Tarr, M. J., & Crommelinck, M. (2002). Expertise training with novel objects leads to left-lateralized face-like electrophysiological response. Psychological Science, 13(3), 250-257.
17. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 174-215.
18. Takano, Y. (1989). Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1-59.
19. Yin, R. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.