A stereo disadvantage for recognizing rotated familiar objects

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 832-838

  Pasqualotto, Achille ^a   Hayward, William G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; ROTATION;

DEPTH PERCEPTION; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); ROTATION;

EID: 74849102475     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.832     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bennett, D. J., & Vuong, Q. C. (2006). A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1082-1093.
2. Buckley, D., & Frisby, J. P. (1993). Interaction of stereo, texture, and outline cues in the shape perception of three-dimensional ridges. Vision Research, 33, 919-933. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(93)90075-8
3. Burke, D. (2005). Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis. Visual Cognition, 12, 705-719. doi:10.1080/13506280444000463
4. Burke, D., Taubert, J., & Higman, T. (2007). Are face representations viewpoint dependent? A stereo advantage for generalizing across different views of face. Vision Research, 47, 2164-2169. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.04.018
5. 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. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90102-O
6. Farah, M. J., Rochlin, R., & Klein, K. L. (1994). Orientation invari- ance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Sci- ence, 18, 325-344.
7. Graf, M. (2006). Coordinate transformations in object recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 920-945. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.920
8. Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Perfor- mance, 24, 427-440. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.427
9. Hayward, W. G., Tarr, M. J., & Corderoy, A. K. (1999). Recognizing silhouettes and shaded images across depth rotation. Perception, 28, 1197-1215. doi:10.1068/p2971
10. Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination. Journal of Vision, 4, 967-992. doi:10.1167/4.12.1
11. Humphrey, G. K., & Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170- 190. doi:10.1037/h0084320
12. Jacobs, R. A. (2002). What determines visual cue reliability? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 345-350. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01948-4
13. Johnston, E. B. (1991). Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis. Vision Research, 31, 1351-1360. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(91)90056-B
14. Knill, D. C., & Saunders, J. A. (2003). Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? Vision Research, 43, 2539-2558. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00458-9
15. Lind, M., Bingham, G. P., & Forsell, C. (2003). Metric 3D structure in visualizations. Information Visualization, 2, 51-57.
16. Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Luckhurst, L. (2002). Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things. Memory & Cognition, 30, 489-498.
17. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. 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.
19. Todd, J. T., & Norman, J. F. (2003). The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric struc- ture? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 31-47.