Using morphs of familiar objects to examine how shape discriminability influences view sensitivity

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 853-877

  Lawson, Rebecca ^a   Bülthoff, Heinrich H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECOGNITION; VISION;

COGNITION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 49049112705     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.5.853     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. ANDREWS, T. J., & EWBANK, M. P. (2004). Distinct representations for facial identity and changeable aspects of faces in the human temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 23, 905-913.
2. BENTON, C. P., JENNINGS, S. J., & CHATTING, D. J. (2006). Viewpoint dependence in adaptation to facial identity. Vision Research, 46, 3313-3325.
3. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. BIEDERMAN, I., & GERHARDSTEIN, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
5. BIEDERMAN, I., & GERHARDSTEIN, P. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1506-1514.
6. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
7. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 480-489.
8. DEMEYER, M., ZAENEN, P., & WAGEMANS, J. (2007). Low-level correlations between object properties and viewpoint can cause viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Spatial Vision, 20,79-106.
9. EGER, E., SCHWEINBERGER, S. R., DOLAN, R. J., & HENSON, R. N. (2005). Familiarity enhances invariance of face representations in human ventral visual cortex: fMRI evidence. NeuroImage, 26, 1128-1139.
10. FANG, F., & HE, S. (2005). Viewer-centered object representation in the human visual system revealed by viewpoint aftereffects. Neuron, 45, 793-800.
11. 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 B, 269, 1939-1947.
12. GELMAN, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. GRILL-SPECTOR, K., KUSHNIR,T., EDELMAN, S., AVIDAN, G., ITZCHAK, Y., & MALACH, R. (1999). Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron, 24, 187-203.
14. HAMM, J. P., & MCMULLEN, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24,413-426.
15. HAMPTON, J. A., ESTES, Z., & SIMMONS, C. L. (2005). Comparison and contrast in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1459-1476.
16. HAYWARD, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 427-440.
17. HAYWARD, W. G. (2003). After the viewpoint debate: Where next in object recognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 425-427.
18. 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.
19. HAYWARD, W. G., & WILLIAMS, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7-12.
20. HUMMEL, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
21. 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.
22. JIANG, F., BLANZ, V., & O'TOOLE, A. J. (2007). The role of familiarity in three-dimensional view-transferability of face identity adaptation. Vision Research, 47, 525-531.
23. JIANG, X., BRADLEY, E., RINI, R. A., ZEFFIRO, T., VANMETER, J., & RIESENHUBER, M. (2007). Categorization training results in shape- and category-selective human neural plasticity. Neuron, 53, 891-903.
24. JOLICœUR, P., GLUCK, M. A., & KOSSLYN, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243-275.
25. KEIL, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
26. KEIL, F. C. (2003). Categorisation, causation, and the limits of understanding. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 663-692.
27. LAWSON, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica, 102, 221-245.
28. LAWSON, R. (2004a). Depth rotation and mirror-image reflection reduce affective preference as well as recognition memory for pictures of novel objects. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1170-1181.
29. LAWSON, R. (2004b). View sensitivity increases for same-shape matches if mismatches show pairs of more similar shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 896-902.
30. LAWSON, R. (2008). A comparison of the effects of depth rotation on visual and haptic 3-D object recognition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31. LAWSON, R., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (2006). Comparing view sensitivity in shape discrimination with shape sensitivity in view discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 655-673.
32. LAWSON, R., BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & DUMBELL, S. (2003). Interactions between view changes and shape changes in picture-picture matching. Perception, 32, 1465-1498.
33. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1996). View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 395-416.
34. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1052-1066.
35. LAWSON, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1999). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition, 6, 165-195.
36. LAWSON, R., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & WATSON, D. G. (1994). Object recognition under sequential viewing conditions: Evidence for viewpoint-specific recognition procedures. Perception, 23, 595-614.
37. LAWSON, R., & JOLICœUR, P. (2003). Recognition thresholds for plane-rotated pictures of familiar objects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 17-41.
38. MARR, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
39. MEDIN, D. L., & ATRAN, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960-983.
40. MURPHY, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
41. MURPHY, G. L., & BROWNELL, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 70-84.
42. OP DE BEECK, H., & WAGEMANS, J. (2001). Visual object categorisation at distinct levels of abstraction: A new stimulus set. Perception, 30, 1337-1361.
43. POURTOIS, G., SCHWARTZ, S., SEGHIER, M. L., LAZEYRAS, F., & VUILLEUMIER, P. (2005). View-independent coding of face identity in frontal and temporal cortices is modulated by familiarity: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 24, 1214-1224.
44. ROCK, I., & DIVITA, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280-293.
45. ROSCH, E., MERVIS, C. B., GRAY, W. D., JOHNSON, D. M., & BOYES-BRAEM, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
46. RYU, J.-J., & CHAUDHURI, A. (2006). Representations of familiar and unfamiliar faces as revealed by viewpoint-aftereffects. Vision Research, 46, 4059-4063.
47. SRINIVAS, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019-1036.
48. STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (2002). Empirical evidence for independent dimensions in the visual representation of three-dimensional shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 913-932.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. TARR, M. J., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1-20.
52. TARR, M. J., & CHENG, Y. D. (2003). Learning to see faces and objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 23-30.
53. TARR, M. J., & PINKER, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253-256.
54. THOMA, V., & DAVIDOFF, J. (2006). Priming of depth-rotated objects depends on attention and part changes. Experimental Psychology, 53, 31-47.
55. THOMA, V., DAVIDOFF, J., & HUMMEL, J. E. (2007). Priming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity. Visual Cognition, 15, 179-210.
56. THOMA, V, HUMMEL, J. E., & DAVIDOFF, J. (2004). Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 257-267.
57. TIAN, B. S., & LEGGE, G. E. (1998). The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task. Vision Research, 38, 2335-2350.
58. VANRIE, J., BÉATSE, E., WAGEMANS, J., SUNAERT, S., & VAN HECKE, P. (2002). Mental rotation versus invariant features in object perception from different viewpoints: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 917-930.
59. VANRIE, J., WILLEMS, B., & WAGEMANS, J. (2001). Multiple routes to object matching from different viewpoints: Mental rotation versus invariant features. Perception, 30, 1047-1056.
60. VUILLEUMIER, P., HENSON, R. N., DRIVER, J., & DOLAN, R. J. (2002). Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 491-499.
61. WILSON, K. D., & FARAH, M. J. (2006). Distinct patterns of viewpoint-dependent BOLD activity during common-object recognition and mental rotation. Perception, 35, 1351-1366.