Dissociating viewpoint costs in mental rotation and object recognition

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 820-825

  Hayward, William G ^a   Zhou, Guomei ^b,c   Gauthier, Isabel ^d   Harris, Irina M ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847646690     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194003     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. CORBALLIS, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes. Psychological Review, 95, 115-123.
3. CORBALLIS, M. C., ZBRODOFF, N. J., SHETZER, L. I., & BUTLER, P. B. (1978). Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits. Memory & Cognition, 6, 98-107.
4. DE CARO, S. A., & REEVES, A. (2000). Rotating objects to determine orientation, not identity: Evidence from a backward-masking/dual-task procedure. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1356-1366.
5. FARAH, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
6. GAUTHIER, I., HAYWARD, W. G., TARR, M. J., ANDERSON, A. W., SKUD-LARSKI, P., & GORE, J. C. (2002). BOLD activity during mental rotation and viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Neuron, 34, 161-171.
7. HARRIS, I. M., & DUX, P. E. (2005a). Orientation-invariant object recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness. Cognition, 95, 73-93.
8. HARRIS, I. M., & DUX, P. E. (2005b). Orientation-invariant representations are activated first in object recognition [Abstract]. Perception, 34(Suppl.), 128.
9. HARRIS, I. M., HARRIS, J. A., & CAINE, D. (2002). Mental rotation deficits following damage to the right basal ganglia. Neuropsychology, 16, 524-537.
10. HAYWARD, W. G., & WILLIAMS, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7-12.
11. HUMMEL, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
12. JOLICŒUR, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289-303.
13. JOLICŒUR, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dual-systems theory. Mind & Language, 5, 387-410.
14. JOLICŒUR, P., CORBALLIS, M. C., & LAWSON, R. (1998). The influence of perceived rotary motion on the recognition of rotated objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 140-146.
15. JOLICŒUR, P., & MILLIKEN, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 200-210.
16. LAWSON, R., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2003). Recognition thresholds for planerotated pictures of familiar objects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 17-41.
17. LOGOTHETIS, N. K., & PAULS, J. (1995). Psychophysical and physiological evidence for viewer-centered object representations in the primate. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 270-288.
18. LOGOTHETIS, N. K., & SHEINBERG, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 577-621.
19. MILNER, A. D., & GOODALE, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. PALMER, S., ROSCH, E., & CHASE, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. PERRETT, D. I., ORAM, M. W., & ASHBRIDGE, E. (1998). Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: An account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition, 67, 111-145.
22. ROCK, I., & DIVITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
23. ROLLENHAGEN, J. E., & OLSON, C. R. (2000). Mirror-image confusion in single neurons of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. Science, 287, 1506-1508.
24. SHEPARD, R. N. (1981). Psychophysical complementarity. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization (pp. 297-341) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. SHEPARD, R. N., & COOPER, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. SHEPARD, R. N., & JUDD, S. A. (1976). Perceptual illusion of rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 191, 952-954.
27. SHEPARD, R. N., & METZLER, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
28. SNODGRASS, J. G., & CORWIN, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50.
29. TANAKA, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
30. TARR, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55-82.
31. TARR, M. J., & 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 & Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
32. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
33. TARR, M. J., WILLIAMS, P., HAYWARD, W. G., & GAUTHIER, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275-277.
34. TURNBULL, O. H., & MCCARTHY, R. A. (1996). When is a view unusual? A single case study of orientation-dependent visual agnosia. Brain Research Bulletin, 40, 497-503.
35. UNGERLEIDER, L. G., & MISHKIN, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549-586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. VOGELS, R., BIEDERMAN, I., BAR, M., & LORINCZ, A. (2001). Inferior temporal neurons show greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than to metric shape differences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 444-453.
37. WILLEMS, B., & WAOEMANS, J. (2001). Matching multicomponent objects from different viewpoints: Mental rotation as normalization? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1090-1115.