Human Efficiency for Recognizing 3-D Objects Luminance N oise

The purpose of this study was to establish how efficiently humans use visual information to recognize simple 3-D objects. The stimuli were computer-rendered images of four simple 3-D objects-wedge, cone, cylinder, and pyramid~each rendered from 8 randomly chosen viewing positions as shaded objects, line drawings, or silhouettes. The objects were presented in static, 2-D Gaussian luminance noise. The observer's task was to indicate which of the four objects had been presented. We obtained human contrast thresholds for recognition, and compared these to an ideal observer's thresholds to obtain efficiencies. In two auxiliary experiments, we measured efficiencies for object detection and letter recognition. Our results showed that human object-recognition efficiency is low (3-8%) when compared to efficiencies reported for some other visual-information processing tasks. The low efficiency means that human recognition performance is limited primarily by factors intrinsic to the observer rather than the information content of the stimuli. We found three factors that play a large role in accounting for low object-recognition efficiency: stimulus size, spatial uncertainty, and detection efficiency. Four other factors play a smaller role in limiting object-recognition efficiency: observers' internal noise, stimulus rendering condition, stimulus familiarity, and categorization across views.

[1]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Human efficiency for recognizing and detecting low-pass filtered objects , 1995, Vision Research.

[2]  David C. Knill,et al.  Object classification for human and ideal observers , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  The visual filter mediating letter identification , 1994, Nature.

[4]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Dissociations Between Structural and Episodic Representations of Visual Objects , 1992 .

[5]  I Biederman,et al.  Metric invariance in object recognition: a review and further evidence. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[6]  A. Young,et al.  Neglect and visual recognition. , 1992, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[8]  M. Morgan,et al.  Efficiency of locating centres of dot-clusters by human observers , 1991, Vision Research.

[9]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays , 1991, Vision Research.

[10]  G. Sperling,et al.  Object spatial frequencies, retinal spatial frequencies, noise, and the efficiency of letter discrimination , 1991, Vision Research.

[11]  G E Legge,et al.  Efficiency of graphical perception , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Colin Blakemore,et al.  Statistical limits to image understanding , 1991 .

[13]  J T Todd,et al.  The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  G Sperling,et al.  Kinetic depth effect and identification of shape. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  S. Ullman.  Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

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

[17]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Shape Information From Shading: A Theory About Human Perception , 1988, [1988 Proceedings] Second International Conference on Computer Vision.

[18]  T Poggio,et al.  Parallel integration of vision modules. , 1988, Science.

[19]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Integration of depth modules: stereo and shading. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[20]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Computing texture boundaries from images , 1988, Nature.

[21]  J. Todd,et al.  Perception of three-dimensional form from patterns of optical texture. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[23]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Three-Dimensional Object Recognition from Single Two-Dimensional Images , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Perceptual Organization and the Representation of Natural Form , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[25]  D G Pelli,et al.  Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[26]  D. Kersten.  Spatial summation in visual noise , 1984, Vision Research.

[27]  R. Watt,et al.  The recognition and representation of edge blur: Evidence for spatial primitives in human vision , 1983, Vision Research.

[28]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  The precision of numerosity discrimination in arrays of random dots , 1983, Vision Research.

[29]  J. Robson,et al.  Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field , 1981, Vision Research.

[30]  H. Barlow,et al.  The statistical efficiency for detecting sinusoidal modulation of average dot density in random figures , 1981, Vision Research.

[31]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

[32]  John E. W. Mayhew,et al.  Psychophysical and Computational Studies Towards a Theory of Human Stereopsis , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[33]  H. Barlow,et al.  The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays , 1979, Vision Research.

[34]  D Marr,et al.  Theory of edge detection , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[35]  G. Legge.  Space domain properties of a spatial frequency channel in human vision , 1978, Vision Research.

[36]  H. Barlow.  The efficiency of detecting changes of density in random dot patterns , 1978, Vision Research.

[37]  Richard O. Duda,et al.  Pattern classification and scene analysis , 1974, A Wiley-Interscience publication.

[38]  G. B. Wetherill,et al.  SEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF POINTS ON A PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTION. , 1965, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[39]  H. Barlow.  Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities , 1958, The Journal of physiology.

[40]  S. Hecht,et al.  ENERGY, QUANTA, AND VISION , 1942, The Journal of general physiology.

[41]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  Recognition of letters and words in noise , 1992 .

[42]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  D. Pelli.  The quantum efficiency of vision , 1990 .

[44]  W. Geisler.  Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations. , 1989, Psychological review.

[45]  T. Birdsall,et al.  Definitions of d' and [nu] as psychophysical measures , 1958 .

[46]  M. Kendall.  Statistical Methods for Research Workers , 1937, Nature.