Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis

Visual Cognition

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 705-719

  Burke, Darren ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; RECOGNITION; RESPONSE TIME; REVIEW; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY;

EID: 22244432171     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280444000463     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Bar, M. (2001). Viewpoint dependency in visual object recognition does not necessarily imply viewer-centered representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 793-799.
2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
3. Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885-2899.
4. Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (2000) Differing views on views: Response to Hayward and Tarr (2000). Vision Research, 40, 3901-3905.
5. Biederman, I., & 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.
6. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bulthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
7. Bulthoff, H. H., & Edelman, S. (1992) Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 89, 60-64
8. Burghund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (2000) Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 480-489.
9. Edelman, S. (1995). Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes. Minds and Machines, 5, 45-68.
10. Edelman, S., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
11. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2003a). Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-109.
12. Edelman, S., & Intrator, N. (2003b). Better limited systematicity in hand than structural descriptions in the bush: A reply to Hummel. Cognitive Science, 27, 331-332.
13. Foster, D. H., & Gilson, S. J. (2002). Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1939-1947
14. Gauthier, I., Hayward, W. G., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (2002). BOLD activity during mental rotation and viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Neuron, 34, 161-171.
15. Hayward, W. G. (2003). After the viewpoint debate: Where next in object recognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 425-427.
16. Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1511-1521.
17. Hayward, W. G., & Taff, M. J. (2000). Differing views on views: Comments on Biederman and Bar (1999). Vision Research, 40, 3895-3899.
18. Hummel, J. E. (2003). "Effective systematicity" in, "effective systematicity" out: A reply to Edelman and Intrator (2003). Cognitive Science, 27, 327-329.
19. Humphrey, G. K., & Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170-190.
20. Lawson, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica 102, 221-245.
21. 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.
22. Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
23. Logothetis, N. K., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 577-621.
24. Simons, D. J., Wang, R. X. F., & Roddenberry, D. (1998) Object recognition is mediated by extraretinal information. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 521-530.
25. 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.
26. Stankiewicz, B. J. (2003). Just another view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 526.
27. Tarr, M. J., & Bulthoff, 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.
28. Tarr, M. J., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1-20.
29. Tarr, M. J., & Cheng, Y. D. (2003). Learning to see faces and objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 23-30.
30. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
31. Vanrie, J., Beatse, E., Wagemans, J., Sunaert, S., & Van Hecke, P. (2002). Mental rotation versus invariant features in object perception from different viewpoints: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 917-930.
32. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193-254.
33. Ullman, S. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition based on the combination of views, Cognition, 67, 21-44.
34. Williams, P., & Tarr, M. J. (No date). RSVP: Experimental control software for MacOs [Online]. Available: http://www.cog.brown.edu/-tarr/RSVP/