The structure of three-dimensional object representations in human vision: Evidence from whole-part matching

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 668-684

  Leek, E Charles ^a   Reppa, Irene ^b   Arguin, Martin ^c,d  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c CENTRE DE RECHERCHE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Image segmentation; Parts; Primitives; Shape representation; Vision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REACTION TIME; VISION;

FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 24944524010     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.668     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Ankrum, C., & Palmer, J. (1991). Memory for objects and parts. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 141-156.
2. Arguin, M., & Leek, E. C. (2003). Orientation invariance in visual object priming depends on prime-target asynchrony. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 469-477.
3. Barrrow, H. G., & Tenenbaum, J. M. (1981). Interpreting line drawings as three-dimensional surfaces. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 75-116.
4. Barrow, H. G., & Tenenbaum, J. M. (1993). Retrospective on "Interpreting line drawings as three-dimensional surfaces." Artificial Intelligence, 59, 71-80.
5. Beck, J. (1972). Similarity grouping and peripheral discriminability under uncertainty. American Journal of Psychology, 85, 1-19.
6. Beymer, D., & Poggio, T. (1996, June 28). Image representations for visual learning. Science, 272, 1905-1909.
7. Biederman, I. (1985). Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 32, 29-73.
8. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
9. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
10. 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.
11. Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1988). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 38-64.
12. Binford, T. O. (1981). Inferring surfaces from images. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 205-244.
13. Bower, G. H., & Glass, A. L. (1976). Structural units and the reintegrative power of picture fragments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 456-466.
14. Brodie, E. E., Wallace, A. M., & Sharrat, B. (1991). Effects of surface characteristics and style of production on naming and verification of pictorial stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 517-545.
15. Brooks, R. (1981). Symbolic reasoning among 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 285-349.
16. Camps, O. I., Huang, C.-Y., & Kanungo, T. (1998). Hierarchical organization of appearance-based parts and relations for object recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 685-691). Santa Barbara, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
17. Cave, C. B., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1993). The role of parts and spatial relations in object identification. Perception, 22, 229-248.
18. Chainay, H., & Humphreys, G. W. (2001). The real object advantage in agnosia: Evidence for a role of surface and depth information in object recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 175-191.
19. Chakravarty, I., & Freeman, H. (1982). Characteristic views as a basis for three-dimensional object recognition. In Proceedings of the Society for Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers Conference on Robot Vision (Vol. 336, pp. 37-45). Bellingham, WA: Society for Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.
20. Cunningham, D. W., Shipley, T. F., & Kellman, P. J. (1998). The dynamic specification of surfaces and boundaries. Perception, 27, 403-415.
21. Davidoff, J., & Wilson, B. (1985). A case of visual agnosia showing a disorder of presemantic visual classification. Cortex, 21, 121-134.
22. Dickinson, S. J., Bergevin, R., Biederman, I., Eklundh, J.-O., Muck-Fairwood., R., Jain, A. K., & Pentland, A. (1997). Panel report: The potential of geons for generic 3-D object recognition. Image and Vision Computing, 15, 277-292.
23. Edelman, S. (1997). Computational theories of object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 296-304.
24. Edelman, S. (1999). Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (1991). Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. Psychological Review, 98, 335-351.
26. Farah, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Feldman, J. (2003). What is a visual object? Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 252-256.
28. Grossberg, S. (2000). The complementary brain: Unifying brain dynamics and modularity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 233-246.
29. Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1985). Neural dynamics of perceptual grouping: Textures, boundaries and emergent segmentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 141-171.
30. Grossberg, S., & Swaminathan, G. (2004). A laminar cortical model of 3D perception of slanted and curved surfaces and of 2D images: Development, attention and bistability. Vision Research, 44, 1147-1187.
31. Gum, T. (1995). Psyclab v2.2: Macintosh applications programme [Computer software]. Montreal, Ontario, Canada: Psyclab.
32. Guzman, A. (1968). Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies. AFIPS Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, 33, 291-304.
33. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1992, September 17). Surfaces versus features in visual search. Nature, 359, 231-233.
34. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1995). Visual attention to surfaces in 3D space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 92, 11155-11159.
35. Huffman, D. D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
36. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
37. Hummel, J. E. (1997). Structure and binding in object perception. In J. W. Donahoe & V. Packard (Eds.), Neural-network models of cognition: Biobehavioral foundations. Advances in psychology (Vol. 121, pp. 203-219). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
38. Hummel, J. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception. In E. Dietrich & B. Arthur (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 157-185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
40. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
41. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Humphrey, G. K., Goodale, M. A., Jakobson, L. S., & Servos, P. (1994). The role of surface information in object recognition: Studies of a visual form agnosic and normal subjects. Perception, 23, 1457-1481.
43. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Julesz, B. (1981, March 12). Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interaction. Nature, 290, 91-97.
45. Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1991). A theory of visual interpolations in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 141-221.
46. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doom, A. J. (1979). Internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biological Cybernetics, 32, 211-216.
47. Kurbat, M. A. (1994). Structural description theories: Is RBC/JIM a general purpose theory of human entry-level object recognition? Perception, 23, 1339-1368.
48. Lee, Y.-L., & Park, R.-H. (2002). A surface-based approach to 3-D object recognition using a mean field annealing neural network. Pattern Recognition, 35, 299-316.
49. Leek, E. C. (1998a). The analysis of orientation-dependent time costs in visual recognition. Perception, 27, 803-816.
50. Leek, E. C. (1998b). Effects of stimulus orientation on the identification of common polyoriented objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 650-658.
51. Leek, E. C., & Arguin, M. (2000, November). Surface-based shape descriptions in object recognition: Evidence from whole-part matching. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society, New Orleans, LA.
52. Leek, E. C., Reppa, I., & Arguin, M. (2002, November). Surface-based shape representations mediate object recognition: Further evidence from part-whole priming. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Kansas City, KS.
53. Leek, E. C., Reppa, I., & Arguin, M. (2003). The structure of object shape representations in visual recognition. Perception, 32(Suppl.), 120.
54. Leek, E. C., Reppa, I., & Tipper, S. (2003). Inhibition-of-return for objects and locations in static displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 388-395.
55. Lehky, S. R., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1988, June 2). Network model of shape-from-shading: Neural function arises from both receptive and projective fields. Nature, 333, 452-454.
56. Lehky, S. R., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1990). Neural network model of visual cortex for determining surface structure from images of shaded surfaces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 240, 251-278.
57. Liu, C. H., Collin, C. A., & Chaudhuri, A. (2000). Does face recognition rely on encoding of 3-D surface? Examining the role of shape-from-shading and shape-from-stereo. Perception, 29, 729-743.
58. Lowe, D. G. (1987). Three-dimensional object recognition from single two-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 355-395.
59. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
60. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 200, 269-294.
61. Nakayama, K., He, Z. J., & Shimojo, S. (1995). Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. In S. M. Kosslyn & D. Osherson (Eds.), Visual cognition: Vol. 2. An invitation to cognitive science (2nd ed., pp. 1-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Nakayama, K., & Shimojo, S. (1992, September 4). Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces. Science, 257, 1357-1363.
63. Nicholson, K. G., & Humphrey, G. K. (2001). Surface cues reduce the latency to name rotated images of objects. Perception, 30, 1057-1081.
64. Nishihara, H. K. (1981). Intensity, visible surface, and volumetric representations. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 265-284.
65. Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441-474.
66. Palmer, S. E., & Rock, I. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 515-519.
67. Pentland, A. (1989). Shape information from shading: A theory about human perception. Spatial Vision, 4, 165-182.
68. Potmesil, M. (1983). Generating models of solid objects by matching 3D surface segments. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1089-1093). Karlsruhe, Germany: William Kaufmann.
69. Price, C. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41 (A), 797-828.
70. Ramachandra, V. J. (1988). Perceiving shape from shading. Scientific American, 121, 58-65.
71. Reed, S. K. (1974). Structural descriptions and the limitations of visual images. Memory & Cognition, 2, 329-336.
72. Reed, S. K., & Johnsen, J. A. (1975). Detection of parts in patterns and images. Memory & Cognition, 3, 569-575.
73. Reppa, I., & Leek, E. C. (2003). The modulation of inhibition-of-return across object-internal structure: Implications for theories of object-based attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 493-502.
74. Sajda, P., & Finkel, L. H. (1995). Intermediate level visual representations and the construction of surface perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-science, 7, 267-291.
75. Sanocki, T., Bowyer, K. W., Heath, M. D., & Sarkar, S. (1998). Are edges sufficient for object recognition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 340-349.
76. Servos, P., Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1993). The drawing of objects by a visual form agnosic: Contribution of surface properties and memorial representation. Neuropsychologia, 31, 251-259.
77. Siddiqi, K., Tresness, J., & Kimia, B. B. (1996). Parts of visual form: Psychophysical aspects. Perception, 25, 399-424.
78. 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.
79. Tarr, M. J., & Bulthoff, H. H. (1998). Object recognition in man, monkey, and machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Tversky, T., Geisler, W. S., & Perry, J. (2003). Contour grouping: Is there something special about closed contours? [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 3, 121a.
81. Ullman, S., & Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 992-1005.
82. Vecera, S. P., Behrmann, M., & Filapek, J. C. (2001). Attending to the parts of a single object: Part-based selection limitations. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 308-321.
83. Vecera, S. P., Behrmann, M., & McGoldrick, J. (2000). Selective attention to the parts of objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 301-308.
84. Witkin, A. P. (1981). Recovering surface shape and orientation from texture. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 17-45.
85. Xu, Y., & Singh, M. (2002). Early computation of part structure: Evidence from visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1039-1054.