Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding.

The perceptual recognition of objects is conceptualized to be a process in which the image of the input is segmented at regions of deep concavity into an arrangement of simple geometric components, such as blocks, cylinders, wedges, and cones. The fundamental assumption of the proposed theory, recognition-by-components (RBC), is that a modest set of generalized-cone components, called geons (N £ 36), can be derived from contrasts of five readily detectable properties of edges in a two-dimensiona l image: curvature, collinearity, symmetry, parallelism, and cotermination. The detection of these properties is generally invariant over viewing position an$ image quality and consequently allows robust object perception when the image is projected from a novel viewpoint or is degraded. RBC thus provides a principled account of the heretofore undecided relation between the classic principles of perceptual organization and pattern recognition: The constraints toward regularization (Pragnanz) characterize not the complete object but the object's components. Representational power derives from an allowance of free combinations of the geons. A Principle of Componential Recovery can account for the major phenomena of object recognition: If an arrangement of two or three geons can be recovered from the input, objects can be quickly recognized even when they are occluded, novel, rotated in depth, or extensively degraded. The results from experiments on the perception of briefly presented pictures by human observers provide empirical support for the theory. Any single object can project an infinity of image configurations to the retina. The orientation of the object to the viewer can vary continuously, each giving rise to a different two-dimensional projection. The object can be occluded by other objects or texture fields, as when viewed behind foliage. The object need not be presented as a full-colored textured image but instead can be a simplified line drawing. Moreover, the object can even be missing some of its parts or be a novel exemplar of its particular category. But it is only with rare exceptions that an image fails to be rapidly and readily classified, either as an instance of a familiar object category or as an instance that cannot be so classified (itself a form of classification).

[1]  H. Spencer Social Evolution , 2021, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[2]  F. Bartlett,et al.  Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology , 1932 .

[3]  R. Thouless Experimental Psychology , 1939, Nature.

[4]  London,et al.  The Ames Demonstrations in Perception , 1953 .

[5]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[6]  T. A. Ryan,et al.  Speed of perception as a function of mode of representation. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[7]  R. Penrose,et al.  Impossible objects: a special type of visual illusion. , 1958, British journal of psychology.

[8]  U. Neisser Decision-time without reaction-time: Experiments in visual scanning. , 1963 .

[9]  A Wingfield,et al.  Response Latencies in Naming Objects , 1965, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  R. C. Oldfield Things, Words and the Brain* , 1966, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  Adolfo Guzmán-Arenas,et al.  Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies , 1968, AFIPS Fall Joint Computing Conference.

[12]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Multidimensional stimulus identification , 1969 .

[13]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  On the Logic of Perception , 1969 .

[14]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning structural descriptions from examples , 1970 .

[15]  V. Virsu Tendencies to eye movement, and misperception of curvature, direction, and length , 1971 .

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

[17]  V. Virsu Underestimation of curvature and task dependence in visual perception of form , 1971 .

[18]  David L. Waltz,et al.  Generating Semantic Descriptions From Drawings of Scenes With Shadows , 1972 .

[19]  S. F. Checkosky,et al.  Effects of pattern goodness on recognition time in a memory search task. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[21]  W. R. Garner The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[22]  W. R. Garner Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts , 1975 .

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

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

[25]  I. Biederman,et al.  Shape constancy and a perceptual bias towards symmetry , 1976 .

[26]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  The psychology of computer vision , 1976, Pattern Recognit..

[27]  D. Marr,et al.  Analysis of occluding contour , 1977, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[28]  J. R. Pomerantz Pattern goodness and speed of encoding , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[29]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[30]  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.

[31]  S. Carey The child as word learner , 1978 .

[32]  G. Kanizsa,et al.  Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception , 1979 .

[33]  Indranil Chakravarty,et al.  A Generalized Line and Junction Labeling Scheme with Application to scene Analysis , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[34]  R. G. Coss,et al.  Delayed plasticity of an instinct: recognition and avoidance of 2 facing eyes by the jewel fish. , 1979, Developmental psychobiology.

[35]  S. Palmer What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  Harry G. Barrow,et al.  Interpreting Line Drawings as Three-Dimensional Surfaces , 1980, Artif. Intell..

[38]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  Recovery of the Three-Dimensional Shape of an Object from a Single View , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[39]  B. Julesz Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions , 1981, Nature.

[40]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  Symbolic Reasoning Among 3-D Models and 2-D Images , 1981, Artif. Intell..

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

[42]  Thomas O. Binford,et al.  Inferring Surfaces from Images , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[43]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Computer Vision , 1982 .

[44]  G. Miller,et al.  Linguistic theory and psychological reality , 1982 .

[45]  D. Perkins,et al.  A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Use of a Gestalt Perceptual Strategy , 1982, Perception.

[46]  K. Sugihara Classification of Impossible Objects , 1982, Perception.

[47]  I. Biederman,et al.  Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  A. Treisman Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  K. A. Hildebrandt The Role of Physical Appearance in Infant and Child Development , 1982 .

[50]  M. Brady Criteria for Representations of Shape , 1983 .

[51]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Human and Machine Vision , 1983 .

[52]  D. Perkins Why the Human Perceiver Is a Bad Machine , 1983 .

[53]  A. Rosenfeld,et al.  A Theory of Textural Segmentation , 1983 .

[54]  K. A. Hildebrandt,et al.  The infant's physical attractiveness: Its effect on bonding and attachment , 1983 .

[55]  G. Humphreys Reference frames and shape perception , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[56]  A. Witkin,et al.  On the Role of Structure in Vision , 1983 .

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

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

[59]  Kokichi Sugihara,et al.  An Algebraic Approach to Shape-from-Image Problems , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[60]  M. Brady,et al.  Smoothed Local Symmetries and Their Implementation , 1984 .

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

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

[63]  Jonathan H Connell,et al.  Learning Shape Descriptions: Generating and Generalizing Models of Visual Objects , 1985 .

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

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

[66]  B. Fildes,et al.  The on effect of changes in curve geometry magnitude estimates of road-like perspective curvature , 1985 .

[67]  J. Todd,et al.  Describing perceptual information about human growth in terms of geometric invariants , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[68]  M. Lévesque Perception , 1986, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[69]  Ramesh C. Jain,et al.  Invariant surface characteristics for 3D object recognition in range images , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[70]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Object search in nonscene displays. , 1988 .

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

[72]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .