The Effects of Different Aperture-Viewing Conditions on the Recognition of Novel Objects

The process of learning the structure of novel objects involves the selective use of information available in the distal stimulus. By allowing participants to explore the object within a limited field of view, we were able to examine more rigorously what regions of the object are actually selected in the learning process. Participants explored objects either by moving a circular aperture over a stationary novel object (the aperture-movement condition), or by moving the object behind a stationary aperture (the object-movement condition). Given the differences in how the spatial layout of object parts is revealed in the two study conditions, we expected that exploration would be more systematic in the aperture-movement condition than it would be in the object-movement condition, and would lead to better object recognition. We show evidence that in the aperture-movement condition exploration patterns were more related to the structure of the object and, as a consequence, the aperture-movement condition resulted in more accurate recognition in a later old–new discrimination test.

[1]  M. Goodale,et al.  Manipulating and recognizing virtual objects: where the action is. , 2001, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[2]  I. Rock,et al.  The Conditions for the Perception of the Covering and Uncovering of a Line. , 1975 .

[3]  I Rock,et al.  Anorthoscopic perception. , 1981, Scientific American.

[4]  F. Zöllner,et al.  Ueber eine neue Art anorthoskopischer Zerrbilder , 1862 .

[5]  A. L. I︠A︡rbus Eye Movements and Vision , 1967 .

[6]  Alfred L. Yarbus Eye Movements During Perception of Moving Objects , 1967 .

[7]  S. Anstis,et al.  Distortions in moving figures viewed through a stationary slit. , 1967, The American journal of psychology.

[8]  Frédéric Gosselin,et al.  Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks , 2001, Vision Research.

[9]  G K Humphrey,et al.  An Examination of the Effects of Axis Foreshortening, Monocular Depth Cues, and Visual Field on Object Identification , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  Hermann von Helmholtz,et al.  Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1962 .

[11]  T E Parks A control for ocular tracking in the demonstration of postretinal visual storage. , 1970, The American journal of psychology.

[12]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Post-retinal storage? Some further observations on Parks’ camel as seen through the eye of a needle , 1968 .

[13]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[14]  I Rock,et al.  Eye movement as a cue to figure motion in anorthoscopic perception. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  I. Rock,et al.  Intelligence Factors in the Perception of Form through a Moving Slit , 1973, Perception.

[16]  A. L. Yarbus,et al.  Eye Movements and Vision , 1967, Springer US.

[17]  T. Parks POST-RETINAL VISUAL STORAGE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition , 1999, Current Biology.

[19]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[20]  Ranxiao Frances Wang,et al.  Perceiving Real-World Viewpoint Changes , 1998 .

[21]  J M Findlay,et al.  Aperture Viewing*: A Review and a Synthesis , 1982, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[22]  I Rock,et al.  Form perception without a retinal image. , 1969, The American journal of psychology.

[23]  R. Kirk Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .