Literature DB >> 12350257

Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views.

David H Foster1, Stuart J Gilson.   

Abstract

Visually recognizing objects at different orientations and distances has been assumed to depend either on extracting from the retinal image a viewpoint-invariant, typically three-dimensional (3D) structure, such as object parts, or on mentally transforming two-dimensional (2D) views. To test how these processes might interact with each other, an experiment was performed in which observers discriminated images of novel, computer-generated, 3D objects, differing by rotations in 3D space and in the number of parts (in principle, a viewpoint-invariant, 'non-accidental' property) or in the curvature, length or angle of join of their parts (in principle, each a viewpoint-dependent, metric property), such that the discriminatory cue varied along a common physical scale. Although differences in the number of parts were more readily discriminated than differences in metric properties, they showed almost exactly the same orientation dependence. Overall, visual performance proved remarkably lawful: for both long (2 s) and short (100 ms) display durations, it could be summarized by a simple, compact equation with one term representing generalized viewpoint-invariant parts-based processing of 3D object structure, including metric structure, and another term representing structure-invariant processing of 2D views. Object discriminability was determined by summing signals from these two independent processes.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12350257      PMCID: PMC1691113          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  36 in total

1.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition.

Authors:  H H Bülthoff; S Edelman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  View specificity in object processing: evidence from picture matching.

Authors:  R Lawson; G W Humphreys
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Visual gap and offset discrimination and its relation to categorical identification in brief line-element displays.

Authors:  D H Foster; M Ferraro
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition.

Authors:  S Ullman
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1989-08

5.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding.

Authors:  Irving Biederman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Internal representations and operations in the visual comparison of transformed patterns: effects of pattern point-inversion, position symmetry, and separation.

Authors:  D H Foster; J I Kahn
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.086

7.  The cue for contour-curvature discrimination.

Authors:  D H Foster; D R Simmons; M J Cook
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance.

Authors:  I Biederman; P C Gerhardstein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Parts of recognition.

Authors:  D D Hoffman; W A Richards
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1984-12

Review 10.  Visual object recognition.

Authors:  N K Logothetis; D L Sheinberg
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 12.449

View more
  12 in total

1.  View sensitivity increases for same-shape matches if mismatches show pairs of more similar shapes.

Authors:  Rebecca Lawson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

2.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual spaces.

Authors:  Sandro Rama Fiorini; Peter Gärdenfors; Mara Abel
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2013-10-22

3.  Divided attention limits perception of 3-D object shapes.

Authors:  Alec Scharff; John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Intrinsic orientation and study viewpoint in recognizing spatial structure of a shape.

Authors:  Xiaoou Li; Weimin Mou; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-06

5.  Bias effects in the possible/impossible object decision test with matching objects.

Authors:  Anja Soldan; H John Hilton; Yaakov Stern
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-03

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

Authors:  Haemy Lee; Christian Wallraven
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Learned Non-Rigid Object Motion is a View-Invariant Cue to Recognizing Novel Objects.

Authors:  Lewis L Chuang; Quoc C Vuong; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  Dynamics of 3D view invariance in monkey inferotemporal cortex.

Authors:  N Apurva Ratan Murty; Sripati P Arun
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  A Balanced Comparison of Object Invariances in Monkey IT Neurons.

Authors:  N Apurva Ratan Murty; Sripati P Arun
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2017-04-13

10.  Shape information mediating basic- and subordinate-level object recognition revealed by analyses of eye movements.

Authors:  Lina I Davitt; Filipe Cristino; Alan C-N Wong; E Charles Leek
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.