Memory for objects in canonical and noncanonical viewpoints

This article investigates how the perspective from which we see an object affects memory. Object identification can be affected by the orientation of the object. Palmer, Rosch, and Chase (1981) coined the term canonical to describe perspectives in which identification performance is best. We present two experiments that tested the effects of object perspective on memory. Our results revealed a double dissociation between task (recognition and recall) and type of object perspective. In recognition, items studied in the noncanonical viewpoint produced higher proportions of “old” responses than did items studied in the canonical viewpoint, whereas new objects presented from a noncanonical viewpoint produced fewer “old” responses than did new objects presented from the canonical viewpoint. In free recall, conversely, objects studied from the noncanonical viewpoint produced lower recall rates than did objects studied from the canonical viewpoint. These results, which reveal a pattern similar to word frequency effects, support the psychological reality of canonical viewpoints and the frequencyof-exposure-based accounts of canonical viewpoint effects. 2008 Psychonomic Society, Inc

[1]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[2]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  Don L. Scarborough,et al.  Frequency and Repetition Effects in Lexical Memory. , 1977 .

[4]  M. Glanzer,et al.  Analysis of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory , 1976 .

[5]  William E. Hockley,et al.  Reflections of the mirror effect for item and associative recognition , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[6]  K Verfaillie,et al.  A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  Benton J. Underwood,et al.  Testing effects in the recognition of words , 1970 .

[8]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  The word-frequency paradox for recall/recognition occurs for pictures , 2004, Psychological research.

[9]  H. Peters.  The Relationship between Familiarity of Words and Their Memory Value , 1936 .

[10]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[11]  M J Tarr,et al.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  L. Jacoby,et al.  On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  J. Hall,et al.  Learning as a function of word-frequency. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

[14]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Michael J. Tarr.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural description or by multiple views , 1995 .

[16]  Richard M Shiffrin,et al.  Interactions between study task, study time, and the low-frequency hit rate advantage in recognition memory. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  R. Shepard.  Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures , 1967 .

[19]  Benton J. Underwood,et al.  An analysis of intralist similarity in verbal learning with experiments on conceptual similarity , 1965 .

[20]  M J Tarr,et al.  What Object Attributes Determine Canonical Views? , 1999, Perception.

[21]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: attentional priming, learning, and resonance. , 1986, Psychology Review.

[22]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

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

[24]  P. Jolicoeur.  The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[25]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Neural Network Model of Implicit Memory for Object Recognition , 2000, Psychological science.

[26]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Neuronal representation of object orientation , 2000, Neuropsychologia.