Literature DB >> 26392357

On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition.

Kohei Nonose1,2, Ryosuke Niimi3, Kazuhiko Yokosawa3.   

Abstract

A three-quarter view, i.e., an oblique view, of familiar objects often leads to a higher subjective goodness rating when compared with other orientations. What is the source of the high goodness for oblique views? First, we confirmed that object recognition performance was also best for oblique views around 30° view, even when the foreshortening disadvantage of front- and side-views was minimized (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, we measured subjective ratings of view goodness and two possible determinants of view goodness: familiarity of view, and subjective impression of three-dimensionality. Three-dimensionality was measured as the subjective saliency of visual depth information. The oblique views were rated best, most familiar, and as approximating greatest three-dimensionality on average; however, the cluster analyses showed that the "best" orientation systematically varied among objects. We found three clusters of objects: front-preferred objects, oblique-preferred objects, and side-preferred objects. Interestingly, recognition performance and the three-dimensionality rating were higher for oblique views irrespective of the clusters. It appears that recognition efficiency is not the major source of the three-quarter view advantage. There are multiple determinants and variability among objects. This study suggests that the classical idea that a canonical view has a unique advantage in object perception requires further discussion.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26392357     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0702-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  24 in total

Review 1.  Models of object recognition.

Authors:  M Riesenhuber; T Poggio
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Invariant Visual Object and Face Recognition: Neural and Computational Bases, and a Model, VisNet.

Authors:  Edmund T Rolls
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 2.380

3.  Visual object recognition: do we know more now than we did 20 years ago?

Authors:  Jessie J Peissig; Michael J Tarr
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 24.137

4.  Untangling invariant object recognition.

Authors:  James J DiCarlo; David D Cox
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Viewpoint dependence in the recognition of non-elongated familiar objects: testing the effects of symmetry, front-back axis, and familiarity.

Authors:  Ryosuke Niimi; Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.490

6.  View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects.

Authors:  R Lawson; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-08

7.  Recognition times of different views of 56 depth-rotated objects: a note concerning Verfaillie and Boutsen (1995).

Authors:  L Boutsen; K Lamberts; K Verfaillie
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-07

Review 8.  The role of color information on object recognition: a review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Inês Bramão; Alexandra Reis; Karl Magnus Petersson; Luís Faísca
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2011-07-31

9.  Routes to object constancy: implications from neurological impairments of object constancy.

Authors:  G W Humphreys; M J Riddoch
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1984-08

10.  The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: one manipulation or two?

Authors:  R Lawson; G W Humphreys; P Jolicoeur
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.