Varieties of Object Constancy

Three experiments are described in which two pictures of isolated man-made objects were presented in succession. The subjects’ task was to decide, as rapidly as possible, whether the two pictured objects had the same name. With a stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) of above 200 msec two types of facilitation were observed: (1) the response latency was reduced if the pictures showed the same object, even though seen from different viewpoints (object benefit); (2) decision time was reduced further if the pictures showed the same object from the same angle of view (viewpoint benefit). These facilitation effects were not affected by projecting the pictures to different retinal locations. Significant benefits of both types were also obtained when the projected images differed in size. However, in these circumstances there was a small but significant performance decrement in matching two similar views of a single object, but not if the views were different. Conversely, the object benefit, but not the viewpoint benefit, was reduced when the SOA was only 100 msec. The data suggest the existence of (at least) two different visual codes, one non-retinotopic but viewer-centred, the other object-centred.

[1]  M. Posner Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

[2]  Michael I. Posner,et al.  Abstraction and The Process of Recognition , 1970 .

[3]  I. Pollack Detection of changes in spatial position: Short-term visual memory or motion perception? , 1972 .

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

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

[6]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[7]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Interaction effects in successive visual displays: An extension of the Eriksen-Collins paradigm , 1973 .

[8]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Coordinate systems in the long-term memory representation of three-dimensional shapes , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  Irvin Rock,et al.  Orientation and form , 1974 .

[10]  S W Keele,et al.  Decay of Visual Information from a Single Letter , 1967, Science.

[11]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Some Demonstrations of the Effects of Structural Descriptions in Mental Imagery , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  H. Barrow,et al.  RECOVERING INTRINSIC SCENE CHARACTERISTICS FROM IMAGES , 1978 .

[13]  P Walker,et al.  Visual memory for pictorial stimuli in a serial choice reaction-time task. , 1987, British journal of psychology.

[14]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

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

[16]  M. Posner,et al.  Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  J. Feldman Four frames suffice: A provisional model of vision and space , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  W. A. Phillips On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory , 1974 .

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