Orientation sensitivity at different stages of object processing: Evidence from repetition priming and naming

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2008, Pages

  Harris, Irina M ^a   Dux, Paul E ^b   Benito, Claire T ^a   Leek, E Charles ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; MENTAL FUNCTION; MENTAL TASK; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT RELATION; ORIENTATION; REACTION TIME; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL MEMORY; ADOLESCENT; PHOTOSTIMULATION; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 48249144388     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002256     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Marr D, Nishihara HK (1978) Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 200: 269-294.
2. Hummel JE, Biederman I (1992) Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review 99: 180-517.
3. Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 94: 115-147.
4. Leck EC, Reppa I, Arguin M (2005) The structure of three-dimensional object representations in human vision: Evidence from whole-part matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31: 668-684.
5. Poggio T, Edelman S (1990) A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature 343: 263-266.
6. Edelman S, Bulthoff HH (1992) Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research 32: 2385-2400.
7. Hummel JE (2000) Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in shape perception and object recognition. In: Dietrich E, Markman A, eds. Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp 157-185.
8. Jolicocur P (1985) The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition 13: 289-303.
9. Tarr MJ (1995) Rotating objects to recognize them: a case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2: 55-82.
10. Harris IM, Harris JA, Caine D (2001) Object orientation agnosia: A failure to find the axis? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13: 800-812.
11. Turnbull OH, Beschin N, Della Sala S (1997) Agnosia for object orientation: implications for theories of object recognition. Neuropsychologia 35: 153-163.
12. Corballis MC, Zbrodoff NJ, Shetzer LI, Butler PB (1978) Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits. Memory and Cognition 6: 98-107.
13. Graf M, Kaping D, Bülthoff HH (2005) Orientation congruency effects for familiar objects: Coordinate transformations in object recognition. Psychological Science 16: 214-221.
14. Leck EC, Johnston SJ (2006) A polarity effect in misoriented object recognition: The role of polar features in the computation of orientation-invariant shape representation. Visual Cognition 13: 573-600.
15. Wong AC-N, Hayward WG (2005) Constraints on view combination: Effects of self-occlusion and differences among familiar and novel views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31: 110-121.
16. Dux PE, Harris IM (2007) Viewpoint costs arise during consolidation: Evidence from the attentional blink. Cognition 104: 47-58.
17. Chun MM, Potter MC (1995) A two-stage model for multiple target detection in RSVP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 109-127.
18. Harris IM, Dux PE (2005) Orientation-invariant object recognition: evidence from repetition blindness. Cognition 95: 73-93.
19. Harris IM, Dux PE (2005) Turning objects on their head: the influence of the stored axis on object individuation. Perception and Psychophysics 67: 1010-1015.
20. Kanwisher NG (1987) Repeiiiion blindness: type recognition without token individuation. Cognition 27: 117-113.
21. Ullman S (1989) Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition 18: 193-251.
22. Perrett DI, Oram MW, Ashbridge E (1998) Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations. Cognition 67: 111-145.
23. Hummel JE (2001) Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition 8: 489-517.
24. Biederman I, Cooper EE (1991) Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception 20: 585-593.
25. McKone E, Grenfell T (1999) Orientation invariance in naming rotated objects: Individual differences and repetition priming. Perception and Psychophysics 61: 1590-1603.
26. Lawson R, Humphreys GW (1996) View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 395-416.
27. Srinivas K (1995) Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21: 1019-1036.
28. Gauthier I, Tarr MJ (1997) Orientation priming of novel shapes in the context of viewpoint-dependent recognition. Perception 26: 51-73.
29. Forster KI, Forster JC (2003) DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 35: 116-124.
30. Murray JE (1995) Negative priming by rotated objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2: 534-537.
31. Arguin M, Leck EC (2003) Orientation invariance in visual object priming depends on prime-target asynchrony. Perception and Psychophysics 65: 469-477.
32. Murray JE (1995) Imagining and naming rotated natural objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2: 239-243.
33. Coltheart M (1980) The persistences of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London-Series B: Biological Sciences 290: 57-69.
34. Thoma V, Davidoff J, Hummel JE (2007) Primming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity. Visual Cognition 15: 179-210.
35. Thoma V, Hummel JE, Davidoff J (2004) Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30: 257-267.