Binocular shape constancy from novel views: The role of a priori constraints

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1124-1139

  Chan, Moses W ^a   Stevenson, Adam K ^a   Li, Yunfeng ^a   Pizlo, Zygmunt ^a,b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645693367     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193715     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. ANSTIS S. M. (1974). A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Research, 14, 589-592.
2. ATTNEAVE F., & FROST, R. (1969). The determination of perceived tridimensional orientation by minimum criteria. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 391-396.
3. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. BIEDERMAN, I., & GERHARDSTEIN, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional view-point invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
5. CHAN, M. W. (1999). A psychologically plausible algorithm for binocular shape reconstruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
6. CHAN, M. W., PIZLO, Z., & CHELBERG, D. M. (1999). Binocular shape reconstruction: Psychological plausibility of the 8-point algorithm. Computer Vision & Image Understanding, 74, 121-137.
7. FAUGERAS, O. (1993). Three-dimensional computer vision: A geometric viewpoint. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. HARTLEY, R. I., & STURM, P. (1997). Triangulation. Computer Vision & Image Understanding, 68, 146-157.
9. HOCHBERG, J., & BROOKS, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 337-355.
10. HOCHBERG, J., & MCALISTER, E. (1953). A quantitative approach to figural "goodness." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 361-364.
11. JULESZ, B. (1971). Foundations of cydopean perception. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
12. KERSTEN, D., MAMASSIAN, P., & YUILLE, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304.
13. KOENDERINK, J. J., VAN DOORN, A. J., & KAPPERS, A. M. L. (1992). Surface perception in pictures. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 487-496.
14. LECLERC, Y. G. (1989). Constructing simple stable descriptions for image partitioning. International Journal of Computer Vision, 3, 73-102.
15. LECLERC, Y. G., & FISCHLER, M. A. (1992). An optimization-based approach to the interpretation of single line drawings as 3-D wire frames. International Journal of Computer Vision, 9, 113-136.
16. LEVI, D. M., & KLEIN, S. A. (1990). The role of separation and eccentricity in encoding position. Vision Research, 30, 557-585.
17. LIU, Z., & KERSTEN, D. (2003). Three-dimensional symmetric shapes are discriminated more efficiently than asymmetric ones. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 20, 1331-1340.
18. LONGUET-HIGGINS, H. C. (1981). A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Nature, 293, 133-135.
19. MACMILLAN, N. A., & CREELMAN, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. MARILL, T. (1991). Emulating the human interpretation of line-drawings as three-dimensional objects. International Journal of Computer Vision, 6, 147-161.
21. MCKEE, S. P., LEVI, D. M., & BOWNE, S. F. (1990). The imprecision of stereopsis. Vision Research, 30, 1763-1779.
22. MITCHISON, G. (1988). Planarity and segmentation in stereoscopic matching. Perception, 17, 753-782.
23. NORMAN, J. F., TODD, J. T., PEROTTI, V. J., & TITTLE, J. S. (1996). The visual perception of three-dimensional length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 173-186.
24. PERKINS, D. N. (1972). Visual discrimination between rectangular and nonrectangular parallelopipeds. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 396-400.
25. PERKINS, D. N. (1982). The perceiver as organizer and geometer. In J. Beck (Ed.), Organization and representation in perception (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. PIZLO, Z. (2001). Perception viewed as an inverse problem: A mini-review. Vision Research, 41, 3145-3161.
27. PIZLO, Z., LI, Y., & CHAN, M. (2005). Regularization model of human binocular vision. In Proceedings of IS&T/SPIE Conference on Computational Imaging (Vol. 5674, pp. 229-240). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optical Engineering.
28. PIZLO, Z., LI, Y., & FRANCIS, G. (2005). A new look at binocular stereopsis. Vision Research, 45, 2244-2255.
29. PIZLO, Z., ROSENFELD, A., & EPELBOIM, J. (1995). An exponential pyramid model of the time-course of size processing. Vision Research, 35, 1089-1107.
30. PIZLO, Z., ROSENFELD, A., & WEISS, I. (1995). Interdisciplinary study of visual invariants. In D. Don & A. Bruckstein (Eds.), Shape, structure and pattern recognition (pp. 118-127). Singapore: World Scientific.
31. PIZLO, Z., ROSENFELD, A., & WEISS, I. (1997). The geometry of visual space: About the incompatibility between science and mathematics. Dialogue. Computer Vision & Image Understanding, 65, 425-433.
32. PIZLO, Z., & STEVENSON, A. K. (1999). Shape constancy from novel views. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1299-1307.
33. POGGIO, T., TORRE, V., & KOCH, C. (1985). Computational vision and regularization theory. Nature, 317, 314-319.
34. POMERANTZ, J. R., & KUBOVY, M. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 36-1 to 36-46). New York: Wiley.
35. RAWLINGS, S. C., & SHIPLEY, T. (1969). Stereoscopic acuity and horizontal angular distance from fixation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 59, 991-993.
36. REGAN, D. (2000). Human perception of objects. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
37. ROCK, I., & DIVITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
38. ROCK, I., WHEELER, D., & TUDOR, L. (1989). Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints? Cognitive Psychology, 21, 185-210.
39. SHEPARD, R. N., & COOPER, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. SINHA, P., & ADELSON, E. H. (1992). Recovery of 3-D shape from 2-D wireframe drawings [Abstract]. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 33, 825.
41. TJAN, B. S., & LEGGE, G. E. (1998). The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task. Vision Research, 38, 2335-2350.
42. VETTER, T., POGGIO, T., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1994). The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition. Current Biology, 4, 18-23.
43. WITKIN, A., TERZOPOULOS, D., & KAAS, M. (1987). Signal matching through scale space. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1, 133-144.