Literature DB >> 12747500

Recognizing rotated views of objects: interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons.

Marcia L Spetch1, Alinda Friedman.   

Abstract

Pigeons and humans were trained to discriminate between pictures of three-dimensional objects that differed in global shape. Each pair of objects was shown at two orientations that differed by a depth rotation of 90 degrees during training. Pictures of the objects at novel depth rotations were then tested for recognition. The novel test rotations were 30 degrees, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees from the nearest trained orientation and were either interpolated between the trained orientations or extrapolated outside of the training range. For both pigeons and humans, recognition accuracy and/or speed decreased as a function of distance from the nearest trained orientation. However, humans, but not pigeons, were more accurate in recognizing novel interpolated views than novel extrapolated views. The results suggest that pigeons' recognition was based on independent generalization from each training view, whereas humans showed view-combination processes that resulted in a benefit for novel views interpolated between the training views.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12747500     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196477

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  16 in total

1.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects.

Authors:  S Edelman; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects.

Authors:  G K Humphrey; S C Khan
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1992-06

3.  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

4.  Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects.

Authors:  M J Tarr
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-03

5.  A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.

Authors:  T Poggio; S Edelman
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1990-01-18       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Generalization to novel views from view combination.

Authors:  K Srinivas; J Schwoebel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-07

7.  The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans.

Authors:  M L Spetch; A Friedman; S L Reid
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-06

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

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

9.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993).

Authors:  M J Tarr; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  View-dependent object recognition by monkeys.

Authors:  N K Logothetis; J Pauls; H H Bülthoff; T Poggio
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1994-05-01       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  12 in total

1.  Visual object categorization in birds and primates: integrating behavioral, neurobiological, and computational evidence within a "general process" framework.

Authors:  Fabian A Soto; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Capacity and limits of associative memory in pigeons.

Authors:  Robert G Cook; Deborah G Levison; Sarah R Gillett; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

3.  View-invariance learning in object recognition by pigeons depends on error-driven associative learning processes.

Authors:  Fabian A Soto; Jeffrey Y M Siow; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  View combination in scene recognition.

Authors:  Alinda Friedman; David Waller
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-04

5.  Limits of dynamic object perception in pigeons: dynamic stimulus presentation does not enhance perception and discrimination of complex shape.

Authors:  Michaela Loidolt; Ulrike Aust; Michael Steurer; Nikolaus F Troje; Ludwig Huber
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.986

6.  Dynamic object recognition in pigeons and humans.

Authors:  Marcia L Spetch; Alinda Friedman; Quoc C Vuong
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Using the reassignment procedure to test object representation in pigeons and people.

Authors:  Jessie J Peissig; Yasuo Nagasaka; Michael E Young; Edward A Wasserman; Irving Biederman
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  3-Dimensional Scene Perception during Active Electrolocation in a Weakly Electric Pulse Fish.

Authors:  Gerhard von der Emde; Katharina Behr; Béatrice Bouton; Jacob Engelmann; Steffen Fetz; Caroline Folde
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 3.558

9.  Mechanisms of object recognition: what we have learned from pigeons.

Authors:  Fabian A Soto; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Front Neural Circuits       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.492

10.  Insect brains use image interpolation mechanisms to recognise rotated objects.

Authors:  Adrian G Dyer; Quoc C Vuong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.