Visual judgment of similarity across shape transformations: evidence for a compositional model of articulated objects.

A single biological object, such as a hand, can assume multiple, very different shapes, due to the articulation of its parts. Yet we are able to recognize all of these shapes as examples of the same object. How is this invariance to pose achieved? Here, we present evidence that the visual system maintains a model of object transformation that is based on rigid, convex parts articulating at extrema of negative curvature, i.e., part boundaries. We compared similarity judgments in a task in which subjects had to decide which of the two transformed versions of a 'base' shape-one a 'biologically valid' articulation and one a geometrically similar but 'biologically invalid' articulation-was more similar to the base shape. Two types of comparisons were made: in the figure/ground-reversal, the invalid articulation consisted of exactly the same contour transformation as the valid one with reversed figural polarity. In the axis-of-rotation reversal, the valid articulation consisted of a part rotated around its concave part boundaries, while the invalid articulation consisted of the same part rotated around the endpoints on the opposite side of the part. In two separate 2AFC similarity experiments-one in which the base and transformed shapes were presented simultaneously and one in which they were presented sequentially-subjects were more likely to match the base shape to a transform when it corresponded to a legitimate articulation. These results suggest that the visual system maintains expectations about the way objects will transform, based on their static geometry.

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

[2]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Holistic Processing Develops Because it is Good , 2005 .

[3]  L. Gool,et al.  Minimal information to determine affine shape equivalence. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Recognizing solid objects by alignment with an image , 1990, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[5]  Galit Yovel,et al.  Specialized Face Perception Mechanisms Extract Both Part and Spacing Information: Evidence from Developmental Prosopagnosia , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape–based model of vision , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  B Willems,et al.  Multiple Routes to Object Matching from Different Viewpoints: Mental Rotation versus Invariant Features , 2001, Perception.

[8]  C. W. Parkin,et al.  The Magnetism of the Moon , 1971 .

[9]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representing three-dimensional objects by sets of activities of receptive fields , 1993, Biological Cybernetics.

[10]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Independent Processing of Parts and of Their Spatial Organization in Complex Visual Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

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

[13]  E. Rolls,et al.  INVARIANT FACE AND OBJECT RECOGNITION IN THE VISUAL SYSTEM , 1997, Progress in Neurobiology.

[14]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[15]  G. Johansson Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis , 1973 .

[16]  F. Attneave Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[17]  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.

[18]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  RECONSIDERING THE ROLE OF STRUCTURE IN VISION , 2006 .

[19]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Determination of visual figure and ground in dynamically deforming shapes , 2006, Cognition.

[20]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A large-scale integrative study , 2006, Cognition.

[21]  T. Poggio,et al.  Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  J. Hummel,et al.  Categorical relations in shape perception. , 1996, Spatial vision.

[23]  J. Hummel,et al.  Connectedness and part-relation integration in shape category learning , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[24]  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.

[25]  Michael J. Tarr Is human object recognition better described by geon structural description or by multiple views , 1995 .

[26]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  William G. Hayward,et al.  Detection of three types of changes to novel objects , 2003 .

[28]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Visual comparisons within and between object parts: evidence for a single-part superiority effect , 2003, Vision Research.