The role of sequence order in determining view canonicality for novel wire-frame objects

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 71, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 712-723

  Balas, Benjamin J ^a   Sinha, Pawan ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; LEARNING; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RECOGNITION; SHORT TERM MEMORY;

ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MOTION PERCEPTION; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SERIAL LEARNING;

EID: 67650179587     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.4.712     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-723.
2. Balas, B. J. (2007). Learning about dynamic objects and recognizing static form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
3. Balas, B. J., & Sinha, P. (2008). Observed object motion induces increased generalization and sensitivity. Perception, 37, 1160-1174.
4. Blanz, V., Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). What object attributes determine canonical views? Perception, 28, 575-600.
5. Blum, H. (1967). A transformation for extracting new descriptors ofform. In W. Whaten-Dunn (Ed.), Models for the perception of speech and visual form (pp. 362-380). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
7. Bricolo, E., Poggio, T., & Logothetis, N. (1997). 3D object recognition: A model of view-tuned neurons. In M. C. Mozer, M. I. Jordan, & T. Petsche (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 9 (pp. 41-47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Browne, M. W. (2000). Cross-validation methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 108-132.
9. 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.
10. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
11. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261-304.
12. Cox, D. D., Meier, P., Oertelt, N., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2005). "Breaking" position-invariant object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1145-1147.
13. Denton, T., Demirci, M. F., Abrahamson, J., Shokoufandeh, A., & Dickinson, S. (2004). Selecting canonical views for view-based 3-D object recognition. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (pp. 273-276). Philadelphia: Drexel University Press.
14. Edelman, S. (1999). Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
16. Farah, M. J., & Hammond, K. M. (1988). Mental rotation and orientation-invariant object recognition: Dissociable processes. Cognition, 29, 29-46.
17. Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2006). Bayesian estimation of the shape skeleton. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 18014-18019.
18. Foldiak, P. (1991). Learning invariance from transformation sequences. Neural Computation, 3, 194-200.
19. Grabner, M., & Bischof, H. (2005). Extracting object representations from local feature trajectories. In D. Chetverikov, L. Czuni, & M. Vincze (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Hungarian-Austrian Conference on Image Processing and Pattern Recognition (Vol. 192, pp. 265-272). Vienna: Austrian Computer Society.
20. Harman, K. L., & Humphrey, G. K. (1999). Encoding "regular" and "random" sequences of views of novel three-dimensional objects. Perception, 28, 601-615.
21. Harman, K. L., Humphrey, G. K., & Goodale, M. A. (1999). Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition. Current Biology, 9, 1315-1318.
22. Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). Visual object identification: Some effects of image foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 137-159.
23. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., & Goodale, M. A. (2001). Manipulating and recognizing virtual objects: Where the action is. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 113-122.
24. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). "Active" and "passive" learning of threedimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 383-390.
25. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1979). The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biological Cybernetics, 32, 211-216.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Liu, T. (2007). Learning sequences of views of objects: The effect ofspatiotemporal coherence on object recognition. Perception, 36, 1320-1333.
29. Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Bülthoff, H. H., & Poggio, T. (1994). View-dependent object recognition by monkeys. Current Biology, 4, 401-414.
30. Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., & Poggio, T. (1995). Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys. Current Biology, 5, 552-563.
31. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
32. Newell, F. N., Wallraven, C., & Huber, S. (2004). The role of characteristic motion in object categorization. Journal of Vision, 4(2, Art. 5), 118-129. doi:10.1167/4.2.5
33. 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.
34. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
35. Perret, D. I., Harries, M. H., & Looker, S. (1992). Use of preferential inspection to define the viewing sphere and characteristic views of an arbitrary machined tool part. Perception, 21, 497-515.
36. Perry, G., Rolls, E. T., & Stringer, S. M. (2006). Spatial vs temporal continuity in view invariant visual object recognition learning. Vision Research, 46, 3994-4006.
37. Peters, G., Zitova, B., & von der Malsburg, C. (2002). How to measure the pose robustness of object views. Image & Vision Computing, 20, 249-256.
38. Stone, J. V. (1998). Object recognition using spatiotemporal signatures. Vision Research, 38, 947-951.
39. Stone, J. V. (1999). Object recognition: View-specificity and motion specificity. Vision Research, 39, 4032-4044.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Tarr, M. J., & Kriegman, D. J. (2001). What defines a view? Vision Research, 41, 1981-2004.
43. Ullman, S. (1979). The interpretation of structure from motion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 203, 405-426.
44. Vuong, Q. C., & Schultz, J. (2008). Dynamic objects are more than the sum of their views: Behavioral and neural signatures of depth rotation in object recognition [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 8(6, Abstract 39), 39a. doi:10.1167/8.6.39
45. Vuong, Q. C., & Tarr, M. J. (2004). Rotation direction affects object recognition. Vision Research, 44, 1717-1730.
46. Wallach, H., & O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 205-217.
47. Wallis, G. (1998). Spatio-temporal influences at the neural level of object recognition. Network, 9, 265-278.
48. Wallis, G. (2002). The role of object motion in forging long-term representations of objects. Visual Cognition, 9, 233-247.
49. Wallis, G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). Effects of temporal association on recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 4800-4804.
50. Wallraven, C., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001, December). Automatic acquisition of exemplar-based representations for recognition from image sequences. Paper presented at the IEEE Computer Society's Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, Kauai.
51. Wang, G., Obama, S., Yamashita, W., Sugihara, T., & Tanaka, K. (2005). Prior experience of rotation is not required for recognizing objects seen from different angles. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1568-1575