Effects of outline shape in object recognition

The use of outline shape in recognizing objects was investigated in four experiments. In Experiment 1, subjects matched a shaded image to either another shaded image or a silhouette. In Experiment 2, subjects initially named shaded images; later they named either shaded images or silhouettes. Performance in both experiments was predicted by changes in the outline shape of the stimuli. The same matching (Experiment 3) and priming (Experiment 4) paradigms were then used to investigate recognition with objects that were rotated between presentations so as to change the outline shape of the object. Recognition was predicted by changes to outline shape. These results place constraints on models of object recognition, and are most compatible with viewpoint-dependent models of recognition.

[1]  Irvin Rock,et al.  The perception and recognition of complex figures , 1972 .

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

[3]  Dave Bartram,et al.  The role of visual and semantic codes in object naming , 1974 .

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

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

[6]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  Visual Components of the Reading Process. , 1981 .

[7]  J. Morton,et al.  The effects of priming on picture recognition. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[8]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and performance IX , 1982 .

[9]  B. Tversky,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General VOL . 113 , No . 2 JUNE 1984 Objects , Parts , and Categories , 2005 .

[10]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[13]  I. Biederman,et al.  Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  The Apparent Size of Three-Dimensional Objects and Their Silhouettes: A Solid-Superiority Effect , 1988, Perception.

[15]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the Role of Outline Shape and Word-Specific Visual Pattern in the Identification of Function Words: None , 1989 .

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

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

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

[19]  I. Biederman,et al.  Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[21]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a 2D view interpolation theory of object recognition , 1991 .

[22]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[26]  B. Gibson,et al.  Shape Recognition Inputs To Figure-Ground Organization in Three-Dimensional Displays , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  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.

[28]  Kavitha Srinivas.  Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. , 1993 .

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

[30]  S. Edelman,et al.  Canonical views in object representation and recognition , 1994, Vision Research.

[31]  B. Gibson,et al.  Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cuing paradigm. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  M. Kurbat.  Structural Description Theories: Is RBC/JIM a General-Purpose Theory of Human Entry-Level Object Recognition? , 1994, Perception.

[33]  T Van Effelterre,et al.  Aspect Graphs for Visual Recognition of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1994, Perception.

[34]  J. Hummel.  Reference Frames and Relations in Computational Models of Object Recognition , 1994 .

[35]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Geon recognition is viewpoint dependent , 1994 .

[36]  Thierry Van Effelterre,et al.  Aspect Graphs for Visual Recognition of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1994 .

[37]  T. Poggio,et al.  The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition , 1994, Current Biology.

[38]  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.

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

[40]  I Biederman,et al.  Size Invariance in Visual Object Priming of Gray-Scale Images , 1995, Perception.

[41]  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.

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

[43]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

[44]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Information integration in perception and communication , 1996 .

[45]  G W Humphreys,et al.  View specificity in object processing: evidence from picture matching. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  M. Tarr,et al.  Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.