Effects of parametric manipulation of inter-stimulus similarity on 3D object categorization

Spatial Vision

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 107-123

  Edelman, Shimon ^a   Bülthoff, Heinrich H ^b   Bülthoff, Isabelle ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN ENGINEERING; SUBJECTIVE TESTING;

PARAMETRIC MANIPULATION;

VISION;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE;

HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REFERENCE VALUES; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 0344718026     PISSN: 01691015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156856899X00067     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ashby, F. G. and Perrin, N. A. (1988). Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition, Psychological Review 95 (1), 124-150.
2. Bar, M. and Biederman, I. (1995). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects, (unpublished manuscript).
3. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition by components: a theory of human image understanding, Psychological Review 94, 115-147.
4. Biederman, I. and Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for 3D viewpoint invariance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19, 1162-1182.
5. Bülthoff, H. H. and 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. H., Edelman, S. and Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cerebral Cortex 5, 247-260.
7. Cutzu, F. and Edelman, S. (1994). Canonical views in object representation and recognition, Vision Research 34, 3037-3056.
8. Cutzu, F. and Edelman, S. (1998). Representation of object similarity in human vision: psychophysics and a computational model, Vision Research 38, 2227-2257.
9. Edelman, S. (1995a). Class similarity and viewpoint invariance in the recognition of 3D objects, Biological Cybernetics 72, 207-220.
10. Edelman, S. (1995b). Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes, Minds and Machines 5, 45-68.
11. Edelman, S. (1998). Representation is representation of similarity, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 449-498.
12. Edelman, S. and Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of 3D objects, Vision Research 32, 2385-2400.
13. Edelman, S. and Duvdevani-Bar, S. (1997). Similarity, connectionism, and the problem of representation in vision, Neural Compilation 9, 701-720.
14. Humphrey, G. K. and Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects, Can. J. Psychol. 46, 170-190.
15. Jolicoeur, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: a dual-systems theory, Mind and Language 5, 387-410.
16. Jolicoeur, P. and Humphrey, G. K. (1998). Perception of rotated two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects and visual shapes, in: Perceptual Constancies, V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski (Eds), Ch. 10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (in press).
17. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning, Psychological Review 99 (1), 22-44.
18. Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. and Watson, D. G. (1994). Object recognition under sequential viewing conditions: evidence for viewpoint-specific recognition procedures, Perception 23, 595-614.
19. Lawson, R. and Humphreys, G. W. (1996). View specificity in object processing: evidence from picture matching, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22, 395-416.
20. Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Categorization by people and pigeons: The twenty-second Bartlett memorial lecture, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48B, 193-210.
21. Maddox, W. T. and Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization, Perception and Psychophysics 53, 49-70.
22. McKinley, S. C. and Nosofsky, R. M. (1996). Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22, 294-317.
23. McLaren, I. P. L., Leevers, H. J. and Mackintosh, N. J. (1994). Recognition, categorization, and perceptual learning (or, how learning to classify things together helps one to tell them apart), in: Attention and Performance, C. Umiltá and M. Moscovitch (Eds), Vol. XV, Ch. 35, pp. 889-909. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
24. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14, 700-708.
25. Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17, 3-27.
26. Poggio, T. and Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects, Nature 343, 263-266.
27. Rock, I. and DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception, Cognitive Psychology 19, 280-293.
28. SAS (1989). User's Guide, Version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
29. Schyns, P. G. (1998). Diagnostic recognition: task constraints, object information, and their interactions, Cognition 67, 147-179.
30. Tarr, M. J., Bülthoff, H. H., Zabinski, M. and Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science 8, 282-289.
31. Tarr, M. J. and Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition, Cognitive Psychology 21, 233-282.
32. Ullman, S. and Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 13, 992-1005.