Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects

The spatiotemporal pattern projected by a moving object is specific to that object, as it depends on both the shape and the dynamics of the object. Previous research has shown that observers learn to make use of this spatiotemporal signature to recognize dynamic faces and objects. In two experiments, we assessed the extent to which the structural similarity of the objects and the presence of spatiotemporal noise affect how these signatures are learned and subsequently used in recognition. Observers first learned to identify novel, structurally distinctive or structurally similar objects that rotated with a particular motion. At test, each learned object moved with its studied motion or with a non-studied motion. In the non-studied motion condition we manipulated either dynamic information alone (experiment 1) or both static and dynamic information (experiment 2). Across both experiments we found that changing the learned motion of an object impaired recognition performance when 3-D shape was similar or when the visual input was noisy during learning. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that observers use learned spatiotemporal signatures and that such information becomes progressively more important as shape information becomes less reliable.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  The visual representation of three-dimensional, rotating objects. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

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

[5]  J. Cutting,et al.  Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues , 1977 .

[6]  Narendra Ahuja,et al.  Learning to recognize objects , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2000 (Cat. No.PR00662).

[7]  Ken Perlin,et al.  An image synthesizer , 1988 .

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

[9]  Taosheng Liu,et al.  Explicit and implicit memory for rotating objects. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[11]  James V. Stone,et al.  Object recognition: view-specificity and motion-specificity , 1999, Vision Research.

[12]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Recognizing moving faces: a psychological and neural synthesis , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  The use of facial motion and facial form during the processing of identity , 2003, Vision Research.

[14]  Rebecca Lawson,et al.  Object Recognition under Sequential Viewing Conditions: Evidence for Viewpoint-Specific Recognition Procedures , 1994, Perception.

[15]  Z. Kourtzi,et al.  A Matching Advantage for Dynamic Human Faces , 2002, Perception.

[16]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Recognizing Famous Faces: Exploring the Benefits of Facial Motion , 2000 .

[17]  G. Johansson Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis , 1973 .

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

[19]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[20]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  PerlinKen An image synthesizer , 1985 .

[22]  F. Pollick,et al.  Exaggerating Temporal Differences Enhances Recognition of Individuals from Point Light Displays , 2000, Psychological science.

[23]  S Ullman,et al.  Maximizing Rigidity: The Incremental Recovery of 3-D Structure from Rigid and Nonrigid Motion , 1984, Perception.

[24]  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.

[25]  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.

[26]  Christian Wallraven,et al.  The role of characteristic motion in object categorization. , 2004, Journal of vision.

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

[28]  G. Mather,et al.  Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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

[30]  G K Humphrey,et al.  Encoding ‘Regular’ and ‘Random’ Sequences of Views of Novel Three-Dimensional Objects , 1999, Perception.

[31]  James V. Stone Object recognition using spatiotemporal signatures , 1998, Vision Research.

[32]  M. Tarr,et al.  Rotation direction affects object recognition , 2004, Vision Research.

[33]  P. E. Morris,et al.  Practical aspects of memory : current research and issues , 1988 .

[34]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Effects of temporal association on recognition memory , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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