Exploiting object constancy: effects of active exploration and shape morphing on similarity judgments of novel objects

Humans are experts at shape processing. This expertise has been learned and fine tuned by actively manipulating and perceiving thousands of objects during development. Therefore, shape processing possesses an active component and a perceptual component. Here, we investigate both components in six experiments in which participants view and/or interact with novel, parametrically defined 3D objects using a touch-screen interface. For probing shape processing, we use a similarity rating task. In Experiments 1–3, we show that active manipulation leads to a better perceptual reconstruction of the physical parameter space than judging rotating objects, or passively viewing someone else’s exploration pattern. In Experiment 4, we exploit object constancy—the fact that the visual system assumes that objects do not change their identity during manipulation. We show that slow morphing of an object during active manipulation systematically biases similarity ratings—despite the participants being unaware of the morphing. Experiments 5 and 6 investigate the time course of integrating shape information by restricting the morphing to the first and second half of the trial only. Interestingly, the results indicate that participants do not seem to integrate shape information beyond 5 s of exploration time. Finally, Experiment 7 uses a secondary task that suggests that the previous results are not simply due to lack of attention during the later parts of the trial. In summary, our results demonstrate the advantage of active manipulation for shape processing and indicate a continued, perceptual integration of complex shape information within a time window of a few seconds during object interactions.

[1]  Tetsuo Kawahara,et al.  Effect of Active Exploration of 3-D Object Views on the View-Matching Process in Object Recognition , 2010, Perception.

[2]  Frank Meijer,et al.  Active exploration improves perceptual sensitivity for virtual 3D objects in visual recognition tasks , 2011, Vision Research.

[3]  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.

[4]  Guy Wallis,et al.  Learning Illumination-and Orientation-invariant Representations of Objects through Temporal Association General Methods Experiment Ii , 2022 .

[5]  M. Goodale,et al.  Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition , 1999, Current Biology.

[6]  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.

[7]  S. Edelman,et al.  Representation of object similarity in human vision: psychophysics and a computational model , 1998, Vision Research.

[8]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Multimodal similarity and categorization of novel, three-dimensional objects , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  J. Martinovic,et al.  An Advantage for Active versus Passive Aperture-Viewing in Visual Object Recognition , 2011, Perception.

[10]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representation and recognition in vision , 1999 .

[11]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Visual and haptic perceptual spaces show high similarity in humans. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[12]  S. Ullman The interpretation of structure from motion , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

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

[14]  Tübingen Kybernetik,et al.  Comparing view sensitivity in shape discrimination with shape sensitivity in view discrimination , 2006 .

[15]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Learned Non-Rigid Object Motion is a View-Invariant Cue to Recognizing Novel Objects , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[16]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[17]  Masahiro Takei,et al.  Human resource development and visualization , 2009, J. Vis..

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  Manipulating and recognizing virtual objects: where the action is. , 2001, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[19]  Christian Wallraven A computational recognition system grounded in perceptual research , 2007 .

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Grimes On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. , 1996 .

[22]  R. Shepard Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  T Vilis,et al.  “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[24]  Patrick J. F. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[25]  G. Wallis The role of object motion in forging long-term representations of objects , 2002 .

[26]  Firat Y. Testik,et al.  Breakup patterns for binary drop collisions , 2008, J. Vis..

[27]  M. Goodale Transforming vision into action , 2011, Vision Research.

[28]  Akira Rinoshika,et al.  Visualization of a car mirror wake , 2006, J. Vis..

[29]  Max-Planck-Institut für biologische Kybernetik Using morphs of familiar objects to examine how shape discriminability influences view sensitivity , 2008 .

[30]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Similarity and categorization: from vision to touch. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

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

[32]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[33]  L. Myers,et al.  Spearman Correlation Coefficients, Differences between , 2004 .

[34]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[35]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Early biases and developmental changes in self-generated object views. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[36]  Nao Ninomiya,et al.  The 10th anniversary of journal of visualization , 2007, J. Vis..

[37]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Renewing the respect for similarity , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[38]  Q. Vuong,et al.  The relative weight of shape and non-rigid motion cues in object perception: a model of the parameters underlying dynamic object discrimination. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[39]  Christian Wallraven,et al.  Serial exploration of faces: comparing vision and touch. , 2012, Journal of vision.