Canonical Visual Size for Real-World Objects

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 23-37

  Konkle, Talia ^a   Oliva, Aude ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Canonical perspective; Canonical viewpoint; Object representation; Physical size; Visual size

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; MEMORY; PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; VISUAL FIELD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; JUDGMENT; MEMORY; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SIZE PERCEPTION; VISUAL FIELDS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79751489651     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020413     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bülthoff H.H., Edelman S. Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1992, 89:60-64.
2. Baird J.C. Retinal and assumed size cues as determinants of size and distance perception. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology 1963, 66:155-162.
3. Baird J.C. Sensation and judgment: Complementary theory of psychophysics 1997, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
4. Bar M. Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004, 5:617-629.
5. Biederman I., Mezzanotte R.J., Rabinowitz J.C. Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:143-177.
6. Blanz V., Tarr M.J., Bulthoff H.H. What object attributes determine canonical views?. Perception 1996, 28:575-599.
7. Brainard D.H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:433-436.
8. Brigell M., Uhlarik J., Goldhorn P. Contextual influences on judgments of linear extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1977, 3:105-118.
9. Carmichael L., Hogan H.P., Walter A.A. An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visual perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1932, 15:73-86.
10. Davenport J.L., Potter M.C. Scene consistency in object and background perception. Psychological Science 2004, 15:559-564.
11. DeLoache J.S. Scale errors offer evidence for a perception-action dissociation early in life. Science 2004, 204:1027-1029.
12. Edelman S., Bülthoff H.H. Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research 1992, 32:2385-2400.
13. Epstein W. The Influence of Assumed Size on Apparent Distance. The American Journal of Psychology 1963, 76:257-265.
14. Epstein W., Baratz S.S. Relative size in isolation as a stimulus for relative perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology 1964, 67:507-513.
15. Esptein W. Nonrelational judgments of size and distance. The American Journal of Pscyhology 1965, 78:120-123.
16. Gronau N., Neta M., Bar M. Integrated contextual representation for objects' identities and their locations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20:371-388.
17. Hart J.H., Lesser R.P., Gordon B. Selective interference with the representation of size in the human by direct cortical electrical stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1992, 4:337-344.
18. Hemmer P., Steyvers M. A Bayesian account of reconstructive memory. Topics in Cognitive Science 2009, 1:189-202.
19. Hubbard T.L., Baird J.C. Overflow, first-sight, and vanishing point distances in visual imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14:641-649.
20. Hubbard T.L., Kall D., Baird J.C. Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance. Memory & Cognition 1989, 17:87-94.
21. Huttenlocher J., Hedges L.V., Duncan S. Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in establishing spatial location. Psychological Review 1991, 98:352-376.
22. Huttenlocher J., Hedges L.V., Vevea J. What do categories affect stimulus judgments?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, 129:220-241.
23. Intraub H., Richardson M. Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 1989, 15:179-187.
24. Ittleson W.H. Size as a cue to distance: Static localization. The American Journal of Pscyhology 1951, 64:54-67.
25. Konkle T., Oliva A. Normative representation of objects: Evidence for an ecological bias in perception and memory. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society 2007, 407-413. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. D.S. McNamara, J.G. Trafton (Eds.).
26. Kosslyn S. Measuring the visual angle of the mind's eye. Cognitive Psychology 1978, 10:356-389.
27. Kosslyn S. Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate 1999, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
28. Kunnapas T.M. Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1955, 50:168-170.
29. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of perception 1962, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
30. Moyer R.S. Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics. Perception & Psychophysics 1973, 13:180-184.
31. Nosofksy R.M. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1986, 115:39-57.
32. Oliva A., Torralba A. Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision 2001, 42:145-175.
33. Oliva A., Torralba A. The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2007, 11:520-527.
34. Ono H. Apparent distance as a function of familiar size. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1969, 79:109-115.
35. Paivio A. Perceptual comparisons through the mind's eye. Memory & Cognition 1975, 3:635-647.
36. Palmer S.E., Rosch E., Chase P. Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. Attention and performance IX 1981, 135-151. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. J. Long, A. Baddeley (Eds.).
37. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Gardner, J. S. (in press). Hidden knowledge in aesthetic preferences: Color and spatial composition. In Shimamura, A. P. & Palmer, S. E. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Palmer S.E. The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory and Cognition 1975, 3:519-526.
39. Palmer S.E., Gardner J.S., Wickens T.D. Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects. Spatial Vision 2008, 21:421-449.
40. Pelli D.G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:437-442.
41. Rock I., Ebenholtz S. The relational determination of perceived size. Psychological Review 1959, 66:387-401.
42. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R.L. Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis 1991, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.
43. Senders J.W. The coffee cup illusion. American Journal of Psychology 1966, 79:143-145.
44. Stevens S.S. On the pscyhophysical law. Psychological Review 1957, 64:153-181.
45. Tarr M.J. Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study of the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1995, 2:55-82.
46. Tarr M.J., Pinker S. Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology 1989, 21:233-282.
47. Ullman S. Aligning pictoral description: An approach to object recognition. Cognition 1989, 32:193-254.
48. Walker J.T., Rupick R.C., Powell J.L. The vista paradox: A natural visual illusion. Perception & Psychophysics 1989, 45:43-48.
49. Weber E.U., Johnson E.J. Constructing preferences from memory. The construction of preference 2006, 397-410. Cambridge University Press, New York. S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic (Eds.).
50. Yonas A., Pettersen L., Granrud E. Infants' Sensitivity to Familiar Size as Information for Distance. Child Development 1982, 53:1285-1290.