Abstract
The present study examines the effect of thegoodness of view on the minimal exposure time required to recognize depth-rotated objects. In a previous study, Verfaillie and Boutsen (1995) derived scales of goodness of view, using a new corpus of images of depth-rotated objects. In the present experiment, a subset of this corpus (five views of 56 objects) is used to determine the recognition exposure time for each view, by increasing exposure time across successive presentations until the object is recognized. The results indicate that, for two thirds of the objects,good views are recognized more frequently and have lower recognition exposure times thanbad views.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19. 1162–1182.
Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89. 60–64.
Bülthoff, H. H., Edelman, S. Y., &Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain?Cerebral Cortex,5, 247–260.
Cutzu, E., &Edelman, S. (1994). Canonical views in object representation and recognition.Vision Research,34, 3037–3056.
Edelman, S., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of 3D objects.Vision Research,32, 2385–2400.
Freeman, W. T. (1994). The generic view assumption in a framework for visual perception.Nature,368, 542–545.
Freeman, W. T. (1996). Exploiting the generic viewpoint assumption.International Journal of Computer Vision,20, 243–261.
Humphreys, G. W., &Quinlan, P. T. (1987). Normal and pathological processes in visual object constancy. In G. W. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds),Visual object processing: A cognitive neuropsychological approach (pp. 43–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 385–415.
Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1985). Authors’ correction to “Routes to object constancy.”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 493–495.
Lawson, R., &Humphreys, G. W. (1996). View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 395–416.
Logothetis, N. K., &Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition.Annual Review of Neuroscience,19, 577–621.
Palmer, S., Rosch, E., &Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance W (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perrett, D. I., Oram, M. W., Hietanen, J. K., &Benson, P. J. (1994). Issues of representation in object vision. In M. J. Farah & G. Ratcliff (Eds.),The neuropsychology of high-level vision (pp. 33–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Poggio, T., &Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.Nature,343, 263–266.
Srinivas, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 582–602.
Srinivas, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1019–1036.
Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 55–82.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Psychology,21, 233–282.
Verfaillie, K. (1992). Variant points of view on viewpoint invariance.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 215–235.
Verfaillie, K. (1993). Orientation-dependent priming effects in the perception of biological motion.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 992–1013.
Verfaillie, K., &Boutsen, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 925–961.
Weinshall, D., Werman, M., &Tishby, N. (1996). Stability and like-lihood of views of three-dimensional objects.Computing Supplementum,11, 237–256.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was conducted by L.B. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.Sc. in Cognitive Science at the University of Birmingham and was supervised by K.L. K.V is a Research Associate of the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boutsen, L., Lamberts, K. & Verfaillie, K. Recognition times of different views of 56 depth-rotated objects: A note concerning Verfaillie and Boutsen (1995). Perception & Psychophysics 60, 900–907 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206072
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206072