Identification of disoriented objects: effects of context of prior presentation.

Half of the subjects in the training phase of Experiment 1 named objects shown in a number of orientations, whereas the other half named objects shown upright only. All subjects named objects seen in a number of different orientations in the transfer phase. Half of the objects in the transfer phase were the ones they had seen in the training phase (old objects), whereas the other half were objects they had not seen before (new objects). Mean naming time in the transfer phase increased more as the objects were rotated further from the upright for new objects than for old objects when the old objects had been seen in a variety of orientations. In contrast, a substantial and equivalent orientation effect on identification time was obtained for old and new objects when the old objects had been seen upright only. These results suggest that the extraction and use of orientation-invariant attributes to identify objects is not a "default" identification strategy employed by the human visual system. In Experiment 2, half of the objects named in the training phase were shown upright only, whereas the other half were shown in a number of orientations. Both types of objects (upright vs. rotated) were presented in a mixed fashion from trial to trial. The results revealed that prior naming of the objects in this context resulted in equivalent reductions in the magnitude of the orientation effect on identification time for both sets of objects (upright and rotated). Together, the results of these two experiments suggest that markedly different representations of objects are encoded, depending on the context in which objects are seen. Implications for models of pattern recognition are discussed.

[1]  G. V. Dearborn.  Recognition under objective reversal. , 1899 .

[2]  J. Gibson,et al.  Orientation in visual perception; The recognition of familiar plane forms in differing orientations. , 1935 .

[3]  I. Rock.  The orientation of forms on the retina and in the environment. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of retinal and phenomenal orientation on the perception of form. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Oliver G. Selfridge,et al.  Pattern recognition by machine , 1960 .

[6]  E. Gibson.  Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[7]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  Orientation of letters and their speed of recognition , 1969 .

[8]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  Orientation of letters and errors in their recognition , 1969 .

[9]  David E. Rumelhart,et al.  A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays , 1970 .

[10]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[11]  William K. Estes,et al.  Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing , 1972 .

[12]  R. Shepard,et al.  CHRONOMETRIC STUDIES OF THE ROTATION OF MENTAL IMAGES , 1973 .

[13]  D. Shinar,et al.  Effects of form rotation on the speed of classification: the development of shape constancy , 1973 .

[14]  Irvin Rock,et al.  Orientation and form , 1974 .

[15]  W. Chase,et al.  Visual information processing. , 1974 .

[16]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[17]  M. Corballis,et al.  Latency to categorize disoriented alphanumeric characters as letters or digits. , 1978 .

[18]  M. Corballis,et al.  Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[19]  H. Hock,et al.  Mental rotation and perceptual uprightness , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  Stephen K. Reed.  SCHEMES AND THEORIES OF PATTERN RECOGNITION , 1978 .

[21]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[22]  M. White.  Naming and categorization of tilted alphanumeric characters do not require mental rotation , 1980 .

[23]  Geoffrey E. Hinton.  A Parallel Computation that Assigns Canonical Object-Based Frames of Reference , 1981, IJCAI.

[24]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[25]  F Simion,et al.  Transformation processes upon the visual code , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  M. G. Eley,et al.  Identifying rotated letter-like symbols , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[27]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Images and Their Transformations , 1982 .

[28]  E. Tulving.  Elements of episodic memory , 1983 .

[29]  S. Pinker,et al.  Visual cognition : An introduction * , 1989 .

[30]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[31]  B. Tversky,et al.  Objects, parts, and categories. , 1984 .

[32]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Effects of orientation on the identification of simple visual patterns. , 1984, Canadian journal of psychology.

[33]  S. Ullman.  Visual routines , 1984, Cognition.

[34]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

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

[36]  A Koriat,et al.  Mental rotation and visual familiarity , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  R. Maki.  Naming and locating the tops of rotated pictures. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[38]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  The time to identify disoriented letters: effects of practice and font. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[39]  Mj Tarr,et al.  Rotating shapes to recognize them , 1988 .

[40]  P. Jolicoeur.  Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects. , 1988, Canadian journal of psychology.

[41]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Image Transforms in the Visual System , 2021, Figural Synthesis.