The Role of Parts and Spatial Relations in Object Identification

An investigation of the role of parts and their spatial relations in object identification is reported. At the most general level, two important results were obtained. First, proper spatial relations among components of an object are critical for easy identification. When parts were scrambled on the page, naming times and error rates increased. And, second, the way an object is divided into parts (parsed) affects identification only under the most impoverished viewing conditions. When subjects had as little as 1 s (and sometimes as little as 200 ms) to view an object, the way objects were divided into parts had no effect on naming times or accuracy. There was no hint of an interaction between type of parse and how parts were arranged on the page. This pattern of effects supports theories that suggest that objects typically are recognized without being parsed into parts. The findings are in agreement with theories suggesting that object features (not specifically related to parts) are matched directly with such features stored in long-term memory, with the constraint that the features of a single object are seen from a single viewpoint.

[1]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Structural descriptions and the limitations of visual images* , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Detection of parts in patterns and images , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[3]  G. Bower,et al.  Structural units and the redintegrative power of picture fragments. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[4]  G. Bower,et al.  Structural units and the redintegrative power of picture fragments. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[5]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  S E Palmer,et al.  Structural aspects of visual similarity , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[8]  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.

[9]  S. Pinker,et al.  Visual cognition : An introduction * , 1989 .

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

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

[12]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Perceptual Organization and the Representation of Natural Form , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[13]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Three-Dimensional Object Recognition from Single Two-Dimensional Images , 1987, Artif. Intell..

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

[15]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

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

[17]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Varieties of size-specific visual selection. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Components of high-level vision: A cognitive neuroscience analysis and accounts of neurological syndromes , 1990, Cognition.

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

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

[21]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience , 1995 .

[22]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition , 2012 .