Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints?

Rock, Irvin; Wheeler, Deborah; Tudor, Leslie

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90007-8

Cited by 110 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Performance depends on the reference frame that is rotated (as described above), as well as the axes of rotation and the type of task required. For example, studies have demonstrated the dif®culty of imagining rotations about oblique axes (Pani, 1993), and differences between recognition tasks and those that require the prediction of the end-state of a rotation (Parsons, 1995;Rock, 1989).…”

Section: Do Transformations Follow Principles Of Physics or Geometry?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies found that it is easier for observers to spatially update displays during imagined self-rotation versus array rotation. The present study examined whether either the physics of gravity or the geometric relationship between the viewer and array guided this selfrotation advantage. Experiments 1±3 preserved a real or imagined orthogonal relationship between the viewer and the array, requiring a rotation in the observer's transverse plane. Despite imagined self-rotations that de®ed gravity, a viewer advantage remained. Without this orthogonal relationship (Experiment 4), the viewer advantage was lost. We suggest that ef®cient transformation of the egocentric reference frame relies on the representation of body±environment relations that allow rotation around the observer's principal axis. This ef®ciency persists across different and con¯icting physical and imagined postures. q

show abstract

Section: Do Transformations Follow Principles Of Physics or Geometry?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Example of a computer-generated tube-like object (shown in stereo) similar to the stimuli used by Rock et ul. (Rock & DiVita, 1987;Rock, Wheeler & Tudor, 1989). The spheroid surrounding the tube is a 3D stereo-plot of response time vs aspect (local deviations from a perfect sphere represent deviations of response time rrom the mean).…”

Section: View-sphere Visualization Of R T = F(viewongle)mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Shepard and Metzler, 1971;Shepard and Cooper, 1982;Rock et al, 1989). With wire-frame or blob-like objects in same-different judgment tasks (Bülthoff and Edelman, 1992;Tarr, 1995;Tarr et al, 1997), subjects typically show fast, accurate recognition for test views within a small distance of the studied view and impaired performance for novel views.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active and passive scene recognition across views

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence suggests that scene recognition across views is impaired when an array of objects rotates relative to a stationary observer, but not when the observer moves relative to a stationary display [Simons, D.J., Wang, R.F., 1998. Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science 9, 315-320]. The experiments in this report examine whether the relatively poorer performance by stationary observers across view changes results from a lack of perceptual information for the rotation or from the lack of active control of the perspective change, both of which are present for viewpoint changes. Three experiments compared performance when observers passively experienced the view change and when they actively caused the change. Even with visual information and active control over the display rotation, change detection performance was still worse for orientation changes than for viewpoint changes. These findings suggest that observers can update a viewer-centered representation of a scene when they move to a different viewing position, but such updating does not occur during display rotations even with visual and motor information for the magnitude of the change. This experimental approach, using arrays of real objects rather than computer displays of isolated individual objects, can shed light on mechanisms that allow accurate recognition despite changes in the observer's position and orientation.

show abstract

Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints?

Cited by 110 publications

References 13 publications

Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

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

Active and passive scene recognition across views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About