Orientation-specific effects in picture matching and naming

In two experiments, subjects made timed decisions about the second of two sequentially presented rotated drawings of objects. When the two objects were physically identical, response times to decide whether the two drawings depicted the same object varied as a function of the shortest distance between the orientation of the second drawing and either the orientation of the previous drawing or the upright. This was found for both short (250-msec) and long (2-sec) interstimulus-intervals. The result was also obtained when subjects named the second drawing after deciding whether the first drawing faced left or right. Following repeated experience with the drawings in the left/right task over four blocks of trials, time to name the second drawing in the same-object sequences was independent of orientation. These results suggest that, initially, object- and orientation-specific representations can be formed following a single presentation of a rotated object and subsequently used to identify drawings of the same object at either the same or different orientations. Alignment of the second drawing with either the canonical representation or the new representation at the previous orientation is achieved by normalization through the shortest path. Following experience with the objects, orientation-invariant representations are formed.

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

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

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

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

[5]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

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

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

[8]  Rob Ellis,et al.  Multiple levels of representation for visual objects: a behavioural study , 1987 .

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

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

[12]  A Koriat,et al.  Frames and images: sequential effects in mental rotation. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects , 1993, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[16]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of disoriented objects: effects of context of prior presentation. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Automatic access to object identity: attention to global information, not to particular physical dimensions, is important. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  G. Keith Humphrey,et al.  Codes and operations in picture matching , 1993, Psychological research.

[19]  Patricia A. McMullen,et al.  Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Selection by color and form in vision. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Recognition of rotated letters: extracting invariance across successive and simultaneous stimuli. , 1991 .

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

[26]  J. Murray,et al.  Imagining and naming rotated natural objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  "Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects": Erratum. , 1989 .

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

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

[30]  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.

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

[32]  J. Murray,et al.  Negative priming by rotated objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.