Dynamic object recognition in pigeons and humans

We investigated the role of dynamic information in human and pigeon object recognition. Both species were trained to discriminate between two objects that each had a characteristic motion, so that either cue could be used to perform the task successfully. The objects were either easy or difficult to decompose into parts. At test, the learned objects could appear in their learned motions, the reverse of the learned motions, or an entirely new motion, or a new object could appear in one of the learned motions. For humans, any change in the learned motion produced a decrement in performance for both the decomposable and the nondecomposable objects, but participants did not respond differentially to new objects that appeared in the learned motions. Pigeons showed the same pattern of responding as did humans for the decomposable objects, except that pigeons responded differentially to new objects in the learned motions. For the nondecomposable objects, pigeons used motion cues exclusively. We suggest that for some types of objects, dynamic information may be weighted differently by pigeons and humans.

[1]  Alinda Friedman,et al.  Recognizing rotated views of objects: Interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Attention-based visual routines: sprites , 2001, Cognition.

[3]  T. Poggio,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience: Neural mechanisms for the recognition of biological movements , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[4]  James V. Stone.  Object recognition using spatiotemporal signatures , 1998, Vision Research.

[5]  M. Tarr,et al.  Rotation direction affects object recognition , 2004, Vision Research.

[6]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  The use of facial motion and facial form during the processing of identity , 2003, Vision Research.

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

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

[9]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Recognizing Famous Faces: Exploring the Benefits of Facial Motion , 2000 .

[10]  Ian M. Thornton,et al.  Sequence selectivity of form transformation in visual object recognition , 2005 .

[11]  M. Gardner,et al.  USING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[12]  R. Cook,et al.  Dynamic object perception by pigeons. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[13]  Aaron P. Blaisdell,et al.  Dynamic object perception by pigeons: discrimination of action in video presentations , 2001, Animal Cognition.

[14]  H. P. Zeigier,et al.  Vision, brain, and behavior in birds. , 1994 .

[15]  Marcia L. Spetch,et al.  Comparative cognition of object recognition. , 2006 .

[16]  I Biederman,et al.  The pigeon's recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[17]  H. Wallach,et al.  The kinetic depth effect. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  I. Biederman,et al.  The Pigeon's Recognition of Drawings of Depth-Rotated Stimuli , 1996 .

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

[20]  Christian Wallraven,et al.  The role of characteristic motion in object categorization. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[21]  N. Troje.  Decomposing biological motion: a framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[22]  James V. Stone,et al.  Object recognition: view-specificity and motion-specificity , 1999, Vision Research.

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

[24]  S. Lea,et al.  Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion. , 1998, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representation and recognition in vision , 1999 .

[26]  Scott Husband,et al.  Evolution of the avian vision , 2001 .

[27]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  I. Schwab.  Vision, Brain, and Behavior in Birds , 1994 .

[29]  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.

[30]  Marcia L. Spetch,et al.  Recognition by humans and pigeons of novel views of 3-D objects and their photographs. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Taosheng Liu,et al.  Explicit and implicit memory for rotating objects. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  M. Spetch,et al.  Perception of coherent motion in random dot displays by pigeons and humans , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Z. Kourtzi,et al.  A Matching Advantage for Dynamic Human Faces , 2002, Perception.

[34]  Michael J Tarr,et al.  Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects , 2006, Perception.

[35]  A Friedman,et al.  The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  Masako Jitsumori,et al.  Recognition of static and dynamic images of depth-rotated human faces by pigeons , 2004, Learning & behavior.

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