Priming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity

Visual Cognition

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 179-210

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE FIXATION; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LATENT PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; ROTATION; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL ORIENTATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 33847191735     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280500155627     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Biederman, I. (1987) Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94:2, pp. 115-147.
2. Biederman, I. and Bar, M. (1999) One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, pp. 2885-2899.
3. Biederman, I. and Cooper, E. E. (1991) Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, pp. 393-419.
4. Biederman, I. and Cooper, E. E. (1992) Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18:1, pp. 121-133.
5. Biederman, I. and 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, 21:6, pp. 1506-1514.
6. Biederman, I. and Ju, G. (1988) Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, pp. 38-64.
7. Bruce, V., Carson, D., Burton, M. A. and Ellis, A. W. (2000) Perceptual priming is not a necessary consequence of semantic classification of pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53:2, pp. 289-323.
8. Bülthoff, H. H. and Edelman, S. (1992) Psychophysical support for a 2-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89:1, pp. 60-64.
9. Clowes, M. B. (1967) Perception, picture processing and computers. Machine intelligence, 1, pp. 181-197. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, UK
10. Cooper, E. E., Biederman, I. and Hummel, J. E. (1992) Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 46:2, pp. 191-214.
11. Davidoff, J. and Warrington, E. K. (1999) The bare bones of object recognition: Implications from a case of object recognition impairment. Neuropsychologia, 37:3, pp. 279-292.
12. Davidoff, J. and Warrington, E. K. (2001) A particular difficulty in discriminating between mirror images. Neuropsychologia, 39:10, pp. 1022-1036.
13. Edelman, S. and Intrator, N. (2003) Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, pp. 73-110.
14. Foster, D. H. and Gilson, S. J. (2002) Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, pp. 1939-1947.
15. Hayward, W. G. (2003) After the viewpoint debate: Where next in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, pp. 425-427.
16. Henson, R., Shallice, T. and Dolan, R. (2000) Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. Science, 287, pp. 1269-1272.
17. Hummel, J. E. (1994) Reference frames and relations in computational models of object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, pp. 111-116.
18. Hummel, J. E. (2000) Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception. Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines, pp. 157-185. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ
19. Hummel, J. E. (2001) Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, pp. 489-517.
20. Hummel, J. E. and Biederman, I. (1992) Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape-recognition. Psychological Review, 99:3, pp. 480-517.
21. Hummel, J. E. and Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996) An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication, pp. 93-121. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
22. Intraub, H. (1981) Identification and processing of briefly glimpsed visual scenes. Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception, pp. 181-190. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ
23. Jolicoeur, P. (1985) The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 13:4, pp. 289-303.
24. Lawson, R. (1999) Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Ada Psychologica, 102:2, pp. 221-245.
25. Logan, G. D. (1994) Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20:5, pp. 1015-1036.
26. Marr, D. and Nishihara, H. K. (1978) Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
27. Murray, J. E. (1995) The role of attention in the shift from orientation-dependent to orientation-invariant identification of disoriented objects. Memory and Cognition, 23:1, pp. 49-58.
28. Murray, J. E. (1997) Flipping and spinning: Spatial transformation procedures in the identification of rotated natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 25:1, pp. 96-105.
29. Olshausen, B., Anderson, C. and van Essen, D. (1993) A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information. Journal of Neuroscience, 13:11, pp. 4700-4719.
30. Oram, M. W. and Perrett, D. I. (1992) Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68:1, pp. 70-84.
31. Ostergaard, A. L. and Davidoff, J. B. (1985) Some effects of color on naming and recognition of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, pp. 579-587.
32. Palmer, S. E. (1977) Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp. 441-474.
33. Poggio, T. and Edelman, S. (1990) A network that learns to recognize 3-dimensional objects. Nature, 343:6255, pp. 263-266.
34. Potter, M. C. (1976) Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, pp. 509-522.
35. Saiki, J. and Hummel, J. E. (1998) Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, pp. 227-251.
36. Snodgrass, J. G. and 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, pp. 174-215.
37. 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, 28:4, pp. 913-932.
38. Stankiewicz, B. J. and Hummel, J. E. (2002) Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape. Visual Cognition, 9:6, pp. 719-739.
39. Stankiewicz, B. J., Hummel, J. E. and 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, 24:3, pp. 732-744.
40. Sutherland, N. S. (1968) Outlines of a theory of visual pattern recognition in animals and man. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 171, pp. 95-103.
41. Tarr, M. J. and 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, 21:6, pp. 1494-1505.
42. Tarr, M. J. and Pinker, S. (1989) Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape-recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21:2, pp. 233-282.
43. Tarr, M. J. and Pinker, S. (1990) When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?. Psychological Science, 1, pp. 253-256.
44. Thoma, V., Hummel, J. E. and Davidoff, J. (2004) Evidence for holistic representation of ignored images and analytic representation of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30:2, pp. 257-267.
45. Thorpe, S., Fize, D. and Marlot, C. (1996) Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, pp. 520-522.
46. Tipper, S. (1985) The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, pp. 571-590.
47. Treisman, A. and DeSchepper, B. (1996) Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. Attention and performance: XVI. Information integration in perception and communication, pp. 15-46. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
48. Vannucci, M. and Viggiano, M. P. (2000) Category effects on the processing of plane-rotated objects. Perception, 29:3, pp. 287-302.
49. Verfaillie, K. and Boutsen, L. (1995) A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 57:1, pp. 925-961.
50. Vuilleumier, P., Henson, R. N., Driver, J. and Dolan, R. J. (2002) Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5:5, pp. 491-499.
51. Warren, C. E. J. and Morton, J. (1982) The effects of priming on picture recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, pp. 117-130.