The configural advantage in object change detection persists across depth rotation

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1254-1263

  Favelle, Simone K ^a   Hayward, William G ^b   Burke, Darren ^c   Palmisano, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247160422     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193725     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., EDELMAN, S. Y., & TARR. M. J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cerebral Cortex, 5, 247-260.
3. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2000). (Coarse coding of shape fragments) + (retinotopy) = Representation of structure. Spatial Vision, 13, 255-264.
4. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2001). A productive, systematic frame-work for the representation of visual structure. In T. K. Leen, T. G. Dietterich, & V. Tresp (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 13 (pp. 10-16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2003). Towards structural systcmaticity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-109.
6. FAVELLE, S. K., PALMISANO, S., BURKE, D., & HAYWARD, W. G. (2006). The role of attention in processing configural and shape information in 3-D novel objects. Visual Cognition, 13, 623-642.
7. FOSTER, D. H., & 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, 269, 1939-1947.
8. HAYWARD, W. G., & TARR, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1511-1521.
9. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
10. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
11. JOHNSTON, M. B., & HAYES, A. (2000). An experimental comparison of viewpoint-specific and viewpoint-independent models of object representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 792-824.
12. KEANE, S. K., HAYWARD, W. G., & BURKE, D. (2003). Detection of three types of changes to novel objects. Visual Cognition, 10, 101-127.
13. KIMCHI, R. (2003). Relative dominance of holistic and component properties in the perceptual organization of visual objects. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. MACMILLAN, N. A., & CREELMAN, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. TARR, M. J., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1-20.
16. 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.
17. TARR, M. J., WILLIAMS, P., HAYWARD, W. G., & GAUTHIER, I. (1998). hree-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275-277.
18. WILLIAMS, P., & SIMONS, D. J. (2000). Detecting changes in novel, complex three-dimensional objects. Visual Cognition, 7, 297-322.