Active and passive scene recognition across views

Recent evidence suggests that scene recognition across views is impaired when an array of objects rotates relative to a stationary observer, but not when the observer moves relative to a stationary display [Simons, D.J., Wang, R.F., 1998. Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science 9, 315-320]. The experiments in this report examine whether the relatively poorer performance by stationary observers across view changes results from a lack of perceptual information for the rotation or from the lack of active control of the perspective change, both of which are present for viewpoint changes. Three experiments compared performance when observers passively experienced the view change and when they actively caused the change. Even with visual information and active control over the display rotation, change detection performance was still worse for orientation changes than for viewpoint changes. These findings suggest that observers can update a viewer-centered representation of a scene when they move to a different viewing position, but such updating does not occur during display rotations even with visual and motor information for the magnitude of the change. This experimental approach, using arrays of real objects rather than computer displays of isolated individual objects, can shed light on mechanisms that allow accurate recognition despite changes in the observer's position and orientation.

[1]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  One-Shot View Invariance in a Moving World , 1997 .

[2]  T. McNamara,et al.  Multiple views of spatial memory , 1997 .

[3]  A Berthoz,et al.  Spatial memory of body linear displacement: what is being stored? , 1995, Science.

[4]  R. Held,et al.  Neonatal deprivation and adult rearrangement: complementary techniques for analyzing plastic sensory-motor coordinations. , 1961, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[5]  S. Carey,et al.  Infants’ Metaphysics: The Case of Numerical Identity , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[7]  E. E. Cooper,et al.  Object recognition and laterality: Null effects , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  A Berthoz,et al.  Updating an object’s orientation and location during nonvisual navigation: A comparison between two processing modes , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Effect of Self-Initiated Locomotion on Infant Search Activity. , 1985 .

[10]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  Mental rotation and the perspective problem , 1973 .

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

[12]  I. Rock,et al.  Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints? , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  L. Stark,et al.  Ocular proprioception and efference copy in registering visual direction , 1991, Vision Research.

[14]  D. Simons In Sight, Out of Mind: When Object Representations Fail , 1996 .

[15]  R. Held,et al.  Adaptation of Disarranged Hand-Eye Coordination Contingent upon Re-Afferent Stimulation , 1958 .

[16]  B Bridgeman,et al.  Multiple sources of outflow in processing spatial information. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[17]  Zhang,et al.  Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: visual flight control and odometry , 1996, The Journal of experimental biology.

[18]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[19]  Clark C. Presson Strategies in Spatial Reasoning. , 1982 .

[20]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  I. Biederman,et al.  Size invariance in visual object priming , 1992 .

[22]  T. Poggio,et al.  Symmetric 3D objects are an easy case for 2D object recognition. , 1994, Spatial vision.

[23]  James W. Pellegrino,et al.  The acquisition and integration of route knowledge in an unfamiliar neighborhood , 1990 .

[24]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  The coding and transformation of spatial information , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  T Poggio,et al.  View-based models of 3D object recognition: invariance to imaging transformations. , 1995, Cerebral cortex.

[26]  B. Poucet,et al.  The spatial parameters encoded by hamsters during exploration: a further study , 1992, Behavioural Processes.

[27]  R. Held,et al.  PLASTICITY IN HUMAN SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL. , 1963, Science.

[28]  Collett,et al.  Magnetic compass cues and visual pattern learning in honeybees , 1996, The Journal of experimental biology.

[29]  L P Acredolo,et al.  The role of self-produced movement and visual tracking in infant spatial orientation. , 1984, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[30]  T. McNamara,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence in Scene Recognition , 1997 .

[31]  J. S. Scott Kelso,et al.  Planning and Efferent Components in the Coding of Movement , 2013 .

[32]  Wolfgang H. Kirchner,et al.  Dancing honey bees indicate the location of food sources using path integration rather than cognitive maps , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  N. Stucchi,et al.  Viewer- and object-centered mental explorations of an imagined environment are not equivalent. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  J. A. Graziano,et al.  Effect of context and efference copy on visual straight ahead , 1989, Vision Research.

[35]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Scene Recognition after Active and Passive Learning , 1997 .

[36]  E. Spelke,et al.  Spatiotemporal continuity, smoothness of motion and object identity in infancy , 1995 .

[37]  G J Andersen,et al.  Active control in interrupted dynamic spatial orientation: The detection of orientation change , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  R. Cohen,et al.  Spatial representations of young children: the role of self- versus adult-directed movement and viewing. , 1983, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[39]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Varieties of Object Constancy , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[40]  Ronen Basri,et al.  Recognition by Linear Combinations of Models , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[41]  Daniel J. Simons,et al.  Accurate visual detection of layout change requires a stable observer position , 1996 .

[42]  Martin J. Farrell,et al.  Mental Rotation and the Automatic Updating of Body-Centered Spatial Relationships , 1998 .

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

[44]  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.

[45]  Patrick Péruch,et al.  Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge Through Visual Exploration of Simulated Environments , 1995 .

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

[47]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[48]  D. Bartram Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[49]  Michael F. Young,et al.  Imagery, action, and young children's spatial orientation: it's not being there that counts, it's what one has in mind. , 1994, Child development.

[50]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[51]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[52]  T. Poggio,et al.  A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects , 1990, Nature.