Object Recognition: Attention and Dual Routes

The human capacity for visual object recognition is characterized by a number of properties that are jointly very challenging to explain. Recognition performance is highly sensitive to variations in viewpoint such as rotations in the picture plane (e.g., Murray 1995, 1998; Jolicoeur 1985) and to some rotations in depth (e.g., Hayward 1998; Lawson and Humphreys 1996, 1998) but invariant with the location of the image in the visual field (Biederman and Cooper 1991; Stankiewicz and Hummel 2002), the size of the image (Biederman and Cooper 1992; Stankiewicz and Hummel 2002), left-right (i.e., mirror) reflection (Biederman and Cooper 1991; Davidoff and Warrington 2001), and some rotations in depth (Biederman and Gerhardstein 1993). Second, object recognition is remarkably robust to variations in shape (Davidoff and Warrington 1999; Hummel 2001). For example, people spontaneously name the picture of a Collie or a Pomeranian both as simply a “dog” — a phenomenon termed “basic level” categorisation (Rosch et al. 1976).

[1]  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.

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

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

[4]  E. Warrington,et al.  The bare bones of object recognition: implications from a case of object recognition impairment , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Glyn W Humphreys,et al.  AGNOSIA WITHOUT PROSOPAGNOSIA OR ALEXIA: EVIDENCE FOR STORED VISUAL MEMORIES SPECIFIC TO OBJECTS. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  Jules Davidoff,et al.  A particular difficulty in discriminating between mirror images , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[8]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Routes to Object Constancy: Implications from Neurological Impairments of Object Constancy , 1984, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  Nathan Intrator,et al.  Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  G. Orban,et al.  Selectivity for 3D shape that reveals distinct areas within macaque inferior temporal cortex. , 2000, Science.

[11]  Michael I. Posner,et al.  Abstraction and The Process of Recognition , 1970 .

[12]  Janice E. Murray,et al.  The role of attention in the shift from orientation-dependent to orientation-invariant identification of disoriented objects , 1995, Memory & cognition.

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

[14]  R Lawson,et al.  Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[15]  S W Keele,et al.  Decay of Visual Information from a Single Letter , 1967, Science.

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

[17]  J. Davidoff,et al.  Article Title: Priming of Depth-rotated Objects Depends on Attention and Part Running Head: Priming of Depth-rotated Objects Priming of Depth-rotated Objects Depends on Attention and Part Changes , 2022 .

[18]  W. Hayward.  Effects of outline shape in object recognition , 1998 .

[19]  Kavitha Srinivas,et al.  Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  I. Biederman,et al.  Evidence for Complete Translational and Reflectional Invariance in Visual Object Priming , 1991, Perception.

[21]  Manila Vannucci,et al.  Category Effects on the Processing of Plane-Rotated Objects , 2000, Perception.

[22]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Cognitive Neuropsychology: Patterns of Co-occurrence Among the Associative Agnosias: Implications for Visual Object Representation , 1991 .

[23]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The representation of unseen objects in visual neglect: Effects of view and object identity , 2007, Cognitive neuropsychology.

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

[25]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Fractionating the binding process: neuropsychological evidence distinguishing binding of form from binding of surface features , 2000, Vision Research.

[26]  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.

[27]  M. Farah.  Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us about Normal Vision , 1990 .

[28]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape , 2002 .

[29]  William P. Milberg,et al.  Semantic processing in the neglected visual field: Evidence from a lexical decision task , 1993 .

[30]  J. Hummel.  Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition , 2001 .

[31]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of Disoriented Objects: A Dual‐systems Theory , 1990 .

[33]  E. Warrington,et al.  Two Categorical Stages of Object Recognition , 1978, Perception.

[34]  Moshe Bar,et al.  The rise and fall of priming: how visual exposure shapes cortical representations of objects. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[35]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Janice E. Murray,et al.  Is entry-level recognition viewpoint invariant or viewpoint dependent? , 1998 .

[37]  J. Hummel,et al.  Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[40]  C. J. Marsolek.  Dissociable Neural Subsystems Underlie Abstract and Specific Object Recognition , 1999 .

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

[42]  M. Corballis.  Recognition of disoriented shapes. , 1988, Psychological review.

[43]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Priming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity , 2006 .

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

[45]  J. Marshall,et al.  Blindsight and insight in visuo-spatial neglect , 1988, Nature.

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

[47]  J. Hummel,et al.  The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: evidence for a dual representation of object shape. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  Elizabeth K. Warrington,et al.  Visual Apperceptive Agnosia: A Clinico-Anatomical Study of Three Cases , 1988, Cortex.

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

[50]  G. Humphreys,et al.  View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching , 1996 .