Contour-based object identification and segmentation: Stimuli, norms and data, and software tools

We summarize five studies of our large-scale research program, in which we examined aspects of contour-based object identification and segmentation, and we report on the stimuli we used, the norms and data we collected, and the software tools we developed. The stimuli were outlines derived from the standard set of line drawings of everyday objects by Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980). We used contour curvature as a major variable in all the studies. The total number of 1,500 participants produced very solid, normative identification rates of silhouettes and contours, straight-line versions, and fragmented versions, and quite reliable benchmark data about saliency of points and object segmentation into parts. We also developed several software tools to generate stimuli and to analyze the data in nonstandard ways. Our stimuli, norms and data, and software tools have great potential for further exploration of factors influencing contour-based object identification, and are also useful for researchers in many different disciplines (including computer vision) on a wide variety of research topics (e.g., priming, agnosia, perceptual organization, and picture naming). The full set of norms, data, and stimuli may be downloaded fromwww.psychonomic.org/archive/.

[1]  Angel Fernandez,et al.  A set of 254 Snodgrass-Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity , 1996 .

[2]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  Dissociations among implicit and explicit memory tasks: the role of stimulus similarity. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  A Developmental Trajectory in Implicit Memory is Revealed by Picture Fragment Completion , 2000, Memory.

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

[5]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Visual segmentation of 88 outlines of everyday objects: Bottom-up versus top-down and contours versus shapes , 1999 .

[6]  John M Kennedy,et al.  Shape and Contour: The Points of Maximum Change are Least Useful for Recognition , 1985, Perception.

[7]  Kaleem Siddiqi,et al.  Parts of Visual Form: Computational Aspects , 1995, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[8]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Codon constraints on closed 2D shapes , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[9]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Are silhouettes easier to recognize than outlines , 1998 .

[10]  K Siddiqi,et al.  Parts of Visual Form: Psychophysical Aspects , 1996, Perception.

[11]  R. Dhandapani,et al.  Role of scale in partitioning shape , 2002, Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing.

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

[13]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of Visual Objects: An Experimental Test of the Minima Rule , 1989, Perception.

[14]  E Tulving,et al.  Priming and human memory systems. , 1990, Science.

[15]  Paul L. Rosin.  Shape partitioning by convexity , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[16]  B. Rossion,et al.  Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's Object Pictorial Set: The Role of Surface Detail in Basic-Level Object Recognition , 2004, Perception.

[17]  Jin Fan,et al.  The sensory match effect in recognition memory: Perceptual fluency or episodic trace? , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[18]  David Burr,et al.  Agnosia for global patterns: When the cross-talk between grouping and visual selective attention failS , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[19]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Organization of smooth image curves at multiple scales , 1988, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[20]  F X Alario,et al.  A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  Kelly Feenan,et al.  Conceptual priming in fragment completion , 1990 .

[22]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[23]  Jacob feldman,et al.  Bayesian contour integration , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A scale-space analysis , 2003 .

[25]  Terence M. Cronin,et al.  Visualizing concave and convex partitioning of 2D contours , 2003, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[26]  Muriel Boucart,et al.  Lorazepam but not diazepam impairs identification of pictures on the basis of specific contour fragments , 1998, Psychopharmacology.

[27]  J. Koenderink,et al.  The Shape of Smooth Objects and the Way Contours End , 1982, Perception.

[28]  Peter Kitzing,et al.  A cross-linguistic data bank for oral picture naming in Dutch, English, German, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, and Swedish (PEDOI) , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[29]  B. Rossion,et al.  Evidence for perceptual deficits in associative visual (prosop)agnosia: a single-case study , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  Lorella Lotto,et al.  Naming times and standardized norms for the italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[31]  M. Kutas,et al.  Overt and covert identification of fragmented objects inferred from performance and electrophysiological measures. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  R. F. Street.  A Gestalt Completion Test , 1931, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[33]  L. Vaina,et al.  The largest convex patches: A boundary-based method for obtaining object parts , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[34]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  Perceptual Identification Thresholds for 150 Fragmented Pictures from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart Picture Set , 1988, Perceptual and motor skills.

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

[36]  Toby J. Lloyd-Jones,et al.  Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things , 2002, Memory & cognition.

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

[38]  Xavier Cufí,et al.  Yet Another Survey on Image Segmentation: Region and Boundary Information Integration , 2002, ECCV.

[39]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[40]  R. Leeper.  A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning—the Development of Sensory Organization , 1935 .

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

[42]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Salience of visual parts , 1997, Cognition.

[43]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  The computation of occluded contours in visual agnosia: Evidence for early computation prior to shape binding and figure-ground coding , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[44]  Andrew P. Witkin,et al.  Scale-Space Filtering , 1983, IJCAI.

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

[46]  M J Tarr,et al.  Recognizing Silhouettes and Shaded Images across Depth Rotation , 1999, Perception.

[47]  Rakesh Mohan,et al.  Book review: PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION AND VISUAL RECOGNITION by David G. Lowe (Kluwer Academic Publishers) , 1987, SGAR.

[48]  W. Hayward.  Effects of outline shape in object recognition , 1998 .

[49]  James H. Elder,et al.  Contour Grouping with Prior Models , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[50]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Priming effects in picture fragment completion: support for the perceptual closure hypothesis. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[51]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Picture identification of everyday objects: Silhouettes, outlines, and contour fragments , 1997 .

[52]  Xiaoyi Jiang.  An Adaptive Contour Closure Algorithm and Its Experimental Evaluation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[53]  Regine Martein,et al.  Norms for name and concept agreement, familiarity, visual complexity and image agreement on a set of 216 pictures. , 1995 .

[54]  Joan Gay Snodgrass,et al.  Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures , 1996 .

[55]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  Picture naming by young children: norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1997, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[56]  H. Ross,et al.  Information Concentration along the Boundary Contours of Naturally Shaped Solid Objects , 2001, Perception.

[57]  Robert Bergevin,et al.  Object-level structured contour map extraction , 2003, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[58]  James H. Elder,et al.  Image Editing in the Contour Domain , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[59]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[60]  Philip J. Kellman,et al.  Interpolation processes in the visual perception of objects , 2003, Neural Networks.

[61]  R. Kimchi,et al.  What does visual agnosia tell us about perceptual organization and its relationship to object perception? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[62]  Guillaume-Alexandre Bilodeau,et al.  Part segmentation of objects in real images , 2002, Pattern Recognit..