Evidence for Holistic Representations of Ignored Images and Analytic Representations of Attended Images

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 257-267

  Thoma, Volker ^a,c,d   Davidoff, Jules ^a,c   Hummel, John E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842432541     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.257     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception, 20, 585-593.
3. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991b). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
4. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 121-133.
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 and 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 and Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
7. Cave, C. B., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1993). The role of parts and spatial relations in object identification. Perception, 22, 229-248.
8. Cooper, E. E., Biederman, I., & Hummel, J. E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191-214.
9. Davidoff, J., & Warrington, E. K. (1999). The bare bones of object recognition: Implications from a case of object recognition impairment. Neuropsychologia, 37, 279-292.
10. Davidoff, J., & Warrington, E. K. (2001). A particular difficulty in discriminating between mirror images. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1022-1036.
11. Edelman, S. (1998). Representation is representation of similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 449-498.
12. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2000). (Coarse coding of shape fragments) + (retinotopy) ≈ representation of structure. Spatial Vision, 13, 255-264.
13. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2003). Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-110.
14. Hummel, J. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in shape perception and object recognition. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 157-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
16. Hummel, J. E. (2003a). The complementary properties of holistic and analytic representations of object shape. In M. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 212-234). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Hummel, J. E. (2003b). "Effective systematicity" in, "effective systematicity" out: A reply to Edelman and Intrator (2003). Cognitive Science, 27, 327-329.
18. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
19. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996a). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996b). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
21. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
22. Intraub, H. (1981). Identification and processing of briefly glimpsed visual scenes. In D. Fisher, R. A. Monty, & J. W. Sender (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception (pp. 181-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Jolicœur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
24. Lawson, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica, 102, 221-245.
25. Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015-1036.
26. Lowe, D. G. (1987). The viewpoint consistency constraint. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1, 57-72.
27. Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997, November 20). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279-281.
28. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 200, 269-294.
29. Mel, B. W. (1997). SEEMORE: Combining color, shape, and texture histogramming in a neurally inspired approach to visual object recognition. Neural Computation, 9, 777-804.
30. Mel, B. W., & Fiser, J. (2000). Minimizing binding errors using learned conjunctive features. Neural Computation, 12, 247-278.
31. Murray, J. E. (1995). Negative priming by rotated objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 534-537.
32. Oram, M. W., & Perrett, D. I. (1992). The time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68, 70-84.
33. Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441-474.
34. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Structural aspects of similarity. Memory & Cognition, 6, 91-97.
35. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990, January 18). A neural network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
36. Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 509-522.
37. Rensink, R. A. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 17-42,
38. Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019-1025.
39. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J. E. (1996). Attribute conjunctions and the part configuration advantage in object category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1002-1019.
40. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J. E. (1998a). Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 227-251.
41. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J. E. (1998b). Connectedness and part-relation integration in shape category learning. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1138-1156.
42. 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 Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
43. Stankiewicz, B. J. (1997). The role of attention in viewpoint-invariant object recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
44. Stankiewicz, B. J. (2002). Empirical evidence for independent dimensions in the visual representation of three-dimensional shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 913-932.
45. Stankiewicz, B. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2002). Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape. Visual Cognition, 9, 719-739.
46. Stankiewicz, B. J., Hummel, J. E., & Cooper, E. E. (1998). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of object shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 732-744.
47. 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 and Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
48. Tarr, M. J. & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-283.
49. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
50. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 37(A), 571-590.
51. Tipper, S. P., & Driver, J. (1988). Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 16, 64-70.
52. Treisman, A., & DeSchepper, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory, In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Treisman, A., & Gelade G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
54. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169-193.
55. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
56. Ullman, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
57. Ullman, S., & Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 992-1006.
58. Winston, P. (1975). Learning structural descriptions from examples. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 157-209). New York: McGraw-Hill.