View combination: A generalization mechanism for visual recognition

Cognition

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 229-241

  Friedman, Alinda ^a   Waller, David ^b   Thrash, Tyler ^b   Greenauer, Nathan ^b   Hodgson, Eric ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Categorization; Generalization; Scene recognition; View combination; Visual recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LONG TERM MEMORY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIMULUS GENERALIZATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADOLESCENT; COGNITION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952814678     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Biederman I. Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 1987, 94:115-147.
2. Bülthoff H.H., Edelman S. Psychophysical support for a 2-D view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1992, 89:60-64.
3. Castelhano M.S., Pollatsek A., Rayner K. Integration of multiple views of scenes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2009, 71:490-502.
4. Diwadkar V.A., McNamara T.P. Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychological Science 1997, 8:302-307.
5. Edelman S. Representation and recognition in vision 1999, MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Edelman S. Class similarity and viewpoint invariance in the recognition of 3D objects. Biological Cybernetics 1999, 72:207-220.
7. Edelman S. Multidimensional space: The final frontier. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5:1252-1254.
8. Edelman S. Constraining the neural representation of the visual world. Trends in Cognitive Science 2002, 6:125-131.
9. Edelman S., Bülthoff H.H. Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of 3D objects. Vision Research 1992, 32:2385-2400.
10. Edelman S., Bülthoff H.H., Bülthoff I. Effects of parametric manipulation of inter-stimulus similarity on 3D object categorization. Spatial Vision 1999, 12:107-123.
11. Friedman A., Spetch M.L., Ferrey A. Recognition by humans and pigeons of novel views of 3-D objects and their photographs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2005, 134:149-162.
12. Friedman A., Vuong Q.C., Spetch M. Facilitation by view combination and coherent motion in dynamic object recognition. Vision Research 2010, 50:202-210.
13. Friedman A., Waller D. View combination in scene recognition. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:467-478.
14. Guttman N., Kalish H.I. Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1956, 51:79-88.
15. Hull C.L.P. Principles of behavior 1943, D.Appleton-Century, NY.
16. Lawson R., Bulthoff H.H. Using morphs of familiar objects to examine how shape discriminability influences view sensitivity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2008, 70:853-877.
17. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E.J. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1:476-490.
18. Mou W., McNamara T.P. Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 2002, 28:162-172.
19. Nosofsky R.M. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1986, 115:39-57.
20. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. IX, pp. 135-151).
21. Palmeri T.J., Nosofsky R.M. Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categorization. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2001, 54A:197-235.
22. Poggio T., Edelman S. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature 1990, 343:263-266.
23. Posner M.I., Keele S.W. On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1968, 77:353-363.
24. Shepard R.N. Stimulus and response generalization: Tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1958, 55:509-523.
25. Shepard R.N. Toward a universal law of generalization. Science 1987, 237:1317-1323.
26. Shepard R.N., Metzler J. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 1971, 171:701-703.
27. Spence K.W. The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychological Review 1937, 44:430-444.
28. Spetch M.L., Friedman A. Recognizing rotated views of objects: Interpolation vs. generalization by humans and pigeons. Psychological Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:135-140.
29. Shultz J., Chuang L., Vuong Q.C. A dynamic object processing network: Metric shape discrimination of dynamic objects by activation of octipito-temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex. Cortex 2008, 18:1302-1313.
30. Tarr M.J. Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of view point dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1995, 2:55-82.
31. Tarr M.J., Gauthier I. Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class?. Cognition 1998, 67:73-110.
32. Tarr M.J., Pinker S. Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology 1989, 21:233-282.
33. Ullman S. Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition 1989, 32:193-254.
34. Ullman S. Three-dimensional object recognition based on the combination of views. Cognition 1998, 67:21-44.
35. Ullman S., Basri R. Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1991, 13:992-1006.
36. Waller D., Friedman A., Hodgson E., Greenauer N. Learning scenes from multiple views: Novel views can be recognized more efficiently than learned views. Memory & Cognition 2009, 37:90-99.
37. Wong A.C.N., Hayward W.G. Constraints on view combination: Effects of self-occlusion and differences among familiar and novel views. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2005, 31:110-121.
38. Zaki S.R., Nosofsky R.M. A high-distortion enhancement effect in the prototype-learning paradigm: Dramatic effects of category learning during test. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:2088-2096.