Literature DB >> 16082813

When are viewpoint costs greater for silhouettes than for shaded images?

William G Hayward1, Alan C N Wong, Branka Spehar.   

Abstract

Previous studies of object recognition have shown efficient recognition of silhouettes, suggesting that much of the information used to recognize objects resides in the outline. These studies, however, have used objects that contain many components, which provide redundant information. In this study, we examined recognition of silhouettes of less-complex objects, so that redundant information was reduced. We found that viewpoint generalization costs (the decrement of performance when recognizing nonstudied views) were greater for silhouettes than for shaded images, even when the same qualitative components were visible in the outline of both studied and nonstudied views. Thus, silhouettes do not always allow for view generalization as efficiently as do shaded images.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16082813     DOI: 10.3758/bf03196379

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


  12 in total

1.  Recognizing silhouettes and shaded images across depth rotation.

Authors:  W G Hayward; M J Tarr; A K Corderoy
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.490

2.  Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent.

Authors:  M J Tarr; P Williams; W G Hayward; I Gauthier
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 3.  Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: "category-specific" neuropsychological deficits.

Authors:  G W Humphreys; E M Forde
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 12.579

4.  Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things.

Authors:  Toby J Lloyd-Jones; Linda Luckhurst
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-06

5.  Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns).

Authors:  George S Cree; Ken McRae
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2003-06

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

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

7.  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

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.  Category specific access dysphasia.

Authors:  E K Warrington; R McCarthy
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 13.501

10.  Category specific semantic impairments.

Authors:  E K Warrington; T Shallice
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  3 in total

1.  Contrasting the edge- and surface-based theories of object recognition: behavioral evidence from macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Carole Parron; David Washburn
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-01

2.  Learning the 3-D structure of objects from 2-D views depends on shape, not format.

Authors:  Moqian Tian; Daniel Yamins; Kalanit Grill-Spector
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  View specific generalisation effects in face recognition: Front and yaw comparison views are better than pitch.

Authors:  Simone Favelle; Stephen Palmisano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.