The visual system's measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant

Psychological Science

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 232-236

  Wagemans, Johan ^a   Van Gool, Luc ^a   Lamote, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345742883     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00365.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 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.
2. Bruno, N., & Cutting, J.E. (1988). Minimodularity and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 161-170.
3. Cooper, L.A. (1976). Demonstration of a mental analog of an external rotation. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 296-302.
4. Cutting, J.E. (1986). Perception with an eye for motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
5. Farah, M.J., Rochlin, R., & Klein, K.L. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Science, 18, 325-344.
6. Gibson, J.J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
7. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
9. Jolicoeur, P., & Landau, M.J. (1984). Effect of orientation on the identification of simple visual patterns. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 80-93.
10. Koenderink, J.J., & van Doom, A.J. (1991). Affine structure from motion. Journul of the Optical Society of America A, 8, 377-385.
11. Kukkonen, H.T., Foster, D.H., Wood, J.R., Wagemans, J., & Van Gool, L. (1996). Qualitative cues in the discrimination of affine-transformed minimal patterns. Perception, 25, 195-206.
12. Lowe, D.G. (1987). Three-dimensional object recognition from two-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 355-395.
13. Mundy, J.L., & Zisserman, A. (Eds.). (1992). Geometric invariance in computer vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Pizlo, Z. (1994). A theory of shape constancy based on perspective invariants. Vision Research, 34, 1637-1658.
15. Shepard, R.N., & Cooper, L.A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. 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.
17. Tarr, M.J., & Bülthoff, H.H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon-structural descriptions or by multiple views? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
18. Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
19. Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
20. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
21. Van Gool, L., Moons, T., Pauwels, E., & Wagemans, J. (1994). Invariance from the Euclidean geometer's perspective. Perception, 23, 547-561.
22. Wagemans, J. (1993). Skewed symmetry: A nonaccidental property used to perceive visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 364-380.
23. Wagemans, J., Van Gool, L., Lamote, C., & Foster, D.H. (1996). Minimal information to determine affine shape equivalence. Manuscript submitted for publication.