Effects of stimulus orientation on the identification of common polyoriented objects

Experimental evidence has shown that the time taken to recognize objects is often dependent on stimulus orientation in the image plane. This effect has been taken as evidence that recognition is mediated by orientation-specific stored representations of object shapes. However, the factors that determine the orientation specificity of these representations remain unclear. This issue is examined using a word-picture verification paradigm in which subjects identified line drawings of common mono- and polyoriented objects at different orientations. A detailed analysis of the results showed that, in contrast to mono-oriented objects, the recognition of polyoriented objects is not dependent on stimulus orientation. This interaction provides a further constraint on hypotheses about the factors that determine the apparent orientation specificity of stored shape representations. In particular, they support previous proposals that objects are encoded in stored representations at familiar stimulus orientations.

[1]  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.

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

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

[4]  P. Mcmullen,et al.  Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  D Marr,et al.  Theory of edge detection , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

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

[7]  M. Corballis.  Recognition of disoriented shapes. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[9]  Andrew C. Papanicolaou,et al.  Visuospatial tasks compared via activation of regional cerebral blood flow , 1988, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  S M Kosslyn,et al.  On the pictorial properties of visual images: effects of image size on memory for words. , 1977, Canadian journal of psychology.

[11]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Routes to Object Constancy: Implications from Neurological Impairments of Object Constancy , 1984, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[12]  J. T. Massey,et al.  Mental rotation of the neuronal population vector. , 1989, Science.

[13]  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.

[14]  Y. Takano.  Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  L. Zusne.  Visual perception of form , 1970 .

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

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

[18]  S M Kosslyn,et al.  Identifying objects seen from different viewpoints. A PET investigation. , 1994, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[19]  S. Kosslyn.  Scanning visual images:Some structural implications , 1973 .

[20]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation , 1989 .

[21]  M. Tarr,et al.  When does Human Object Recognition use a Viewer-Centered Reference Frame? , 1990 .

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

[23]  M. J. Tarr,et al.  COMMENT ON: IS HUMAN OBJECT RECOGNITION BETTER DESCRIBED BY GEON STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS OR BY MULTIPLE VIEWS ? BY BARTRAM D.J. , 1995 .

[24]  N. Sutherland.  Outlines of a theory of visual pattern recognition in animals and man , 1968, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

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

[26]  S. Edelman,et al.  Canonical views in object representation and recognition , 1994, Vision Research.

[27]  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.

[28]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[29]  Viewpoint Invariance in Object Recognition , 1992 .

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

[31]  M. Farah,et al.  Viewer-Centered and Object-Centered Representations in the Recognition of Naturalistic Line Drawings , 1991 .

[32]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a 2D view interpolation theory of object recognition , 1991 .

[33]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The Visual System's Measurement of Invariants Need Not Itself Be Invariant , 1996 .

[34]  J. Gibson,et al.  Orientation in visual perception; The recognition of familiar plane forms in differing orientations. , 1935 .