Independent representation of parts and the relations between them: Evidence from integrative agnosia

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1169-1184

  Behrmann, Marlene ^a   Peterson, Mary A ^b   Moscovitch, Morris ^c   Suzuki, Satoru ^d  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agnosia; Encoding processes; Neuropsychology; Object perception; Spatial arrangements; Vision; Visual representations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGNOSIA; ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; CASE REPORT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; TEMPORAL LOBE;

ADULT; AGNOSIA; BRAIN INJURIES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TEMPORAL LOBE;

EID: 33749448683     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1169     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Arguin, M., & Saumier, D. (2004). Independent processing of parts and their spatial organization in complex objects. Psychological Science, 15, 629-633.
2. Baker, C., Behrmann, M., & Olson, C. (2002). Impact of visual discrimination training on the representation of parts and wholes in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1210-1216.
3. Ballaz, C., Boutsen, L., Peyrin, C., Humphreys, G. W., & Marendaz, C. (2005). Visual search for object orientation can be modulated by canonical orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 20-39.
4. Behrmann, M., & Kimchi, R. (2003). What does visual agnosia tell us about perceptual organization and its relationship to object perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 19-42.
5. Behrmann, M., Marotta, J., Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., & McKeeff, T. J. (2005). Behavioral change and its neural correlates in visual agnosia after expertise training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 554-568.
6. Behrmann, M., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1994). Intact visual imagery and impaired visual perception in a patient with visual agnosia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1068-1087.
7. Behrmann, M., Shomstein, S., Barton, J. J., & Black, S. E. (2001). Eye movements reveal the sequential processing in letter-by-letter reading. Neuropsychologia, 39, 983-1002.
8. Behrmann, M., Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. (1992, October 15). Dissociations between mental imagery and object recognition in a brain-damaged patient. Nature, 359, 636-637.
9. Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, O. (1978). Facial recognition: Stimulus and multiple choice pictures. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Benton, A. L., Sivan, A. B., Hamsher, K., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, O. (1983). Contributions to neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
11. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
12. Biederman, I., Subramaniam, S., Bar, M., Kalocsai, P., & Fiser, J. (1999). Subordinate-level object classification reexamined. Psychological Research, 62, 131-153.
13. Binford, T. O. (1971, December). Visual perception by computer. Paper presented at the IEEE Systems Science and Cybernetics Conference. Miami, FL.
14. Black, S. E., Vu, B., Martin, D., & Szalai, J. P. (1990). Evaluation of a bedside battery for hemispatial neglect in acute stroke [Abstract]. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 102.
15. Butter, C. M., & Trobe, J. D. (1994). Integrative agnosia following progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Cortex, 30, 145-158.
16. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253-274.
17. Chainay, H., & Humphreys, G. W. (2001). The real object advantage in agnosia: Evidence for a role of shading and depth in object recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 175-191.
18. Chung, M. S., & Thomson, D. M. (1995). Development of face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 55-87.
19. Coslett, H. B., Stark, M., Rajaram, S., & Saffran, E. M. (1996). Narrowing the spotlight: A visual attentional disorder in Alzheimer's disease. Neurocase, 1, 305-318.
20. Crawford, J. R., & Howell, D. C. (1998). Comparing an individual's test scores against norms derived from small samples. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 482-486.
21. Davidoff, J., & Roberson, D. (2002). Development of animal recognition: A difference between parts and wholes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 217-234.
22. Davidoff, J., & Warrington, E. K. (1999). The bare bones of object recognition: Implications from a case of object recognition impairment. Neuropsychologia, 37, 279-292.
23. de Gelder, B., Bachoud-Levi, A. C., & Degos, J. D. (1998). Inversion superiority in visual agnosia may be common to a variety of orientation- polarised objects besides faces. Vision Research, 38, 2855-2861.
24. Edelman, S. (1997). Computational theories of object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 296-304.
25. Efron, R. (1968). What is perception? Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, 4, 137-173.
26. Farah, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Farah, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164-169.
28. Farah, M. J. (2004). Visual agnosia (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Farah, M. J., & Hammond, K. M. (1988). Mental rotation and orientation-invariant object recognition: Dissociable processes. Cognition, 29, 29-46.
30. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., & Tanaka, J. R. (1995). The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms. Vision Research, 35, 2089-2093.
31. Foster, D. H., & Gilson, S. J. (2002). Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings in Biological Science, 269, 1939-1947.
32. Gauthier, I., Behrmann, M., & Tarr, M. J. (1999). Can face recognition really be dissociated from object recognition? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 349-370.
33. Gauthier, I., Behrmann, M., & Tarr, M. J. (2004). Are greebles like faces? Using the neuropsychological exception to test the rule. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1961-1970.
34. Giersch, A., Humphreys, G., Boucart, M., & Kovács, I. (2000). The computation of occluded contours in visual agnosia: Evidence for early computation prior to shape binding and figure-ground coding. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 731-759.
35. Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test. New York: Lea & Febiger.
36. Grailet, J. M., Seron, X., Bruyer, R., Coyette, F., & Frederix, M. (1990). Case report of a visual integrative agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 275-309.
37. 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.
38. Hayward, W. G., Wong, A. C. N., & Spehar, B. (2005). When are viewpoint costs greater for silhouettes than for shaded images? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 321-327.
39. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
40. Hummel, J. (1994). Reference frames and relations in computational models of object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 111-116.
41. Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
42. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
43. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical and 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.
44. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception and structural-description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
45. 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.
46. Humphrey, G. K., & Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 170-191.
47. Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Integrative agnosia. In G. W. Humphreys (Ed.), Case studies in vision (pp. 41-58). London: Psychology Press.
48. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (1987). To see but not to see: A case study of visual agnosia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001). Neuropsychological disorders of visual object recognition and naming. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 159-180). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
50. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2006). Features, objects, action: The cognitive neuropsychology of visual object processing, 1984-2004. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 1-28.
51. Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., Donnelly, N., Freeman, T., Boucart, M., & Muller, H. M. (1994). Intermediate visual processing and visual agnosia. In M. J. Farah & G. Ratcliff (Eds.), The neuropsychology of high-level vision (pp. 63-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1985). Interactive processes in perceptual organization: Evidence from visual agnosia. In M. I. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 301-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., Quinlan, P. T., Price, C. J., & Donnelly, N. (1992). Parallel pattern processing and visual agnosia. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 377-416.
54. Humphreys, K., Avidan, G., & Behrmann, M. (in press). A detailed investigation of facial expression processing in congenital prosopagnosia as compared to acquired prosopagnosia. Experimental Brain Research.
55. Jankowiak, J., Kinsbourne, M., Shalev, R. S., & Bachman, D. L. (1992). Preserved visual imagery and categorization in a case of associative visual agnosia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 119-131.
56. Johnston, M. B., & Hayes, A. (2000). An experimental comparison of viewpoint-specific and viewpoint-independent models of object representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(A), 792-824.
57. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
58. Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1976). Boston Naming Test. Boston: Veterans Administration Hospital.
59. Kartsounis, L., & Warrington, E. K. (1991). Failure of object recognition due to a breakdown in figure- ground discrimination in a patient with normal acuity. Neuropsychologia, 29, 969-980.
60. Leder, H., & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of configural information in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 53(A), 513-536.
61. 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.
62. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255-260.
63. Moore, C., & Cavanagh, P. (1998). Recovery of 3D volume from 2-tone images of novel objects. Cognition, 67, 45-71.
64. Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441-474.
65. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Structural aspects of visual similarity. Memory & Cognition, 6, 91-97.
66. Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Visual object understanding. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 291-303.
67. Piccini, C., Lauro-Grotta, R., Michela Del Viva, M., & Burr, D. (2003). Agnosia for global patterns: When the cross-talk between grouping and visual selective attention fails. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 3-25.
68. Ratcliff, G., & Newcombe, F. A. (1982). Object recognition: Some deductions from the clinical evidence. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 147-171). New York: Academic Press.
69. Rentschler, I., Juttner, M., Osman, E., Muller, A., & Caelli, T. (2004). Development of configural 3D object recognition. Behavioural Brain Research, 149, 107-111.
70. Ricci, R., Vaishnavi, S., & Chatterjee, A. (1999). A deficit of intermediate vision: Experimental observations and theoretical implications. Neurocase, 5, 1-12.
71. Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). A case of integrative visual agnosia. Brain, 110, 1431-1462.
72. Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1993). Birmingham Object Recognition Battery. Hove, England: Erlbaum.
73. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Blott, W., Hardy, E., & Smith, A. D. (2003). Visual and spatial short-term memory in integrative agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 641-671.
74. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J. E. (1998a). Connectedness and part-relation integration in shape category learning. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1138-1156.
75. Saiki, J., & Hummel, J. E. (1998b). Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 227-251.
76. Saumier, D., Arguin, M., Lefebvre, C., & Lassonde, M. (2002). Visual object agnosia as a problem in integrating parts and part relations. Brain Cognition, 48, 531-537.
77. Snodgrass, S. G., & Vanderwart, M. A. (1980). A standardised set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6, 174-215.
78. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46(A), 225-245.
79. Tarr, M. J., Bülthoff, H. H., Zabinski, M., & Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science, 8, 282-289.
80. Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
81. Thaiss, L., & de-Bleser, R. (1992). Visual agnosia: A case of reduced attentional "spotlight"? Cortex, 28, 601-621.
82. Turnbull, O. H. (1997). A double dissociation between knowledge of object identity and object orientation. Neuropsychologia, 35, 567-570.
83. Turnbull, O. H., Laws, K. R., & McCarthy, R. A. (1995). Object recognition without knowledge of object orientation. Cortex, 31, 387-395.
84. Wapner, W., Judd, T., & Gardner, H. (1978). Visual agnosia in an artist. Cortex, 14, 343-364.
85. Warrington, E. K. (1982). Neuropsychological studies of object recognition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 298, 15-33.
86. Warrington, E. K., & James, M. (1988). Visual apperceptive agnosia: A clinico-anatomical study of three cases. Cortex, 24, 13-32.
87. Warrington, E. K., & James, M. (1991). The Visual Objects and Space Perception Battery. Suffolk, England: Thames Valley Test Company.
88. Weisstein, N., & Harris, C. S. (1974, November 22). Visual detection of line segments: An object superiority effect. Science, 186, 752-754.
89. Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59-85.