Orientation invariance in visual shape perception.

To assess directly the orientation-invariance of specific shape representation stages in humans, we examined whether rotation (on the image plane or in depth) modulates the conjunction and linear non-separability effects in a shape visual search task (M. Arguin & D. Saumier, 2000; D. Saumier & M. Arguin, 2003). A series of visual search experiments involving simple 2D or 3D shapes show that these target type effects are entirely resistant to both planar and depth rotations. It was found however, that resistance to depth rotation only occurred when the 3D shapes had a richly textured surface but not when they had a uniform surface, with shading as the only reliable depth cue. The results also indicate that both planar and depth rotations affected performance indexes not concerned with the target type effects (i.e. overall RTs and magnitude of display size and target presence effects). Overall, the present findings suggest that the shape representations subtending the conjunction and linear non-separability effects are invariant across both planar and depth rotations whereas other shape representation stages involved in the task are orientation-specific.

[1]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  The linear separability effect in color visual search: Ruling out the additive color hypothesis , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  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.

[3]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[4]  M. Eckstein The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[5]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  Symbolic Reasoning Among 3-D Models and 2-D Images , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Alex Pentland,et al.  On describing complex surface shapes , 1986, Image Vis. Comput..

[7]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Conjunction and linear non-separability effects in visual shape encoding , 2000, Vision Research.

[8]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Why the visual recognition system might encode the effects of illumination , 1998, Vision Research.

[9]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Learning an object from multiple views enhances its recognition in an orthogonal rotational axis in pigeons , 2002, Vision Research.

[11]  Brian J Stankiewicz,et al.  Empirical evidence for independent dimensions in the visual representation of three-dimensional shape. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  D. Foster,et al.  Recognizing novel three–dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[14]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Differential Effects of Viewpoint on Object-Driven Activation in Dorsal and Ventral Streams , 2002, Neuron.

[15]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys , 1995, Current Biology.

[17]  Zili Liu,et al.  Dissociating stimulus information from internal representation—a case study in object recognition , 1999, Vision Research.

[18]  W. Hayward After the viewpoint debate: where next in object recognition? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  M. Hasselmo,et al.  Object-centered encoding by face-selective neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  W. Cowan,et al.  Distractor Heterogeneity versus Linear Separability in Colour Visual Search , 1996 .

[21]  Refractor Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[22]  M. J. Tarr,et al.  COMMENT ON: IS HUMAN OBJECT RECOGNITION BETTER DESCRIBED BY GEON STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS OR BY MULTIPLE VIEWS ? BY BARTRAM D.J. , 1995 .

[23]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Distinct Mechanisms Account for the Linear non–Separability and Conjunction Effects in Visual Shape Encoding , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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

[26]  S. Edelman,et al.  Differential Processing of Objects under Various Viewing Conditions in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 1999, Neuron.

[27]  Stephen J. Johnston,et al.  A polarity effect in misoriented object recognition: The role of polar features in the computation of orientation-invariant shape representations , 2006 .

[28]  Paul E. Dux,et al.  Viewpoint costs occur during consolidation: Evidence from the attentional blink , 2007, Cognition.

[29]  E. Rolls,et al.  View-invariant representations of familiar objects by neurons in the inferior temporal visual cortex. , 1998, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  William B. Cowan,et al.  Convex hull test of the linear separability hypothesis in visual search , 1999, Vision Research.

[31]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  Article Commentary: Orientation-Dependent Mechanisms in Shape Recognition: Further Issues , 1991 .

[32]  W. Hayward,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence and Object Discriminability , 2000, Psychological science.

[33]  Irving Biederman,et al.  One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects , 1999, Vision Research.

[34]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[35]  Allen M. Waxman,et al.  Spreading activation layers, visual saccades, and invariant representations for neural pattern recognition systems , 1989, Neural Networks.

[36]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Viewpoint Dependency in Visual Object Recognition Does Not Necessarily Imply Viewer-Centered Representation , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[38]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task , 1998, Vision Research.

[40]  R. Henson,et al.  Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[41]  M. Tarr,et al.  When does Human Object Recognition use a Viewer-Centered Reference Frame? , 1990 .

[42]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993 .

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

[44]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  Barr,et al.  Superquadrics and Angle-Preserving Transformations , 1981, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[46]  Darren Burke,et al.  Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis , 2005 .

[47]  Michael D'Zmura,et al.  Color in visual search , 1991, Vision Research.

[48]  J. Cutting,et al.  Three gradients and the perception of flat and curved surfaces. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[49]  W. Cowan,et al.  Visual search for colour targets that are or are not linearly separable from distractors , 1996, Vision Research.

[50]  M. Tarr,et al.  To What Extent Do Unique Parts Influence Recognition Across Changes in Viewpoint? , 1995 .

[51]  A. Parker,et al.  Integration of depth modules: Stereopsis and texture , 1993, Vision Research.

[52]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Shape Integration for Visual Object Recognition and Its Implication in Category-Specific Visual Agnosia , 1996 .

[53]  J. Hummel,et al.  An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description , 1996 .