Limited translation invariance of human visual pattern recognition

Dill, Marcus; Fahle, Manfred

doi:10.3758/bf03211918

Cited by 52 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 81 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings contradict a specific model for invariant object recognition proposing positional normalization by shifts of a window of attention (Olshausen et al 1993;Van Essen et al 1994). Recent experiments investigating translation invariance in same-different tasks led to similar conclusions (Dill & Fahle 1997). …”

Section: Results (A) Pattern-discrimination Learning Is Position Specmentioning

confidence: 48%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of visual field position in pattern–discrimination learning

Dill

Fahle

1997

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYInvariance of object recognition to translation in the visual field is a fundamental property of human pattern vision. In three experiments we investigated this capability by training subjects to distinguish between random checkerboard stimuli. We show that the improvement of discrimination performance does not transfer across the visual field if learning is restricted to a particular location in the retinal image. Accuracy after retinal translation shows no sign of decay over time and remains at the same level it had at the beginning of the training. It is suggested that in two-dimensional translation invariance-as in three-dimensional rotation invariance-the human visual system is relying on memory-intensive rather than computation-intensive processes. Multiple position-and stimulusspecific learning events may be required before recognition is independent of retinal location.

show abstract

Section: Results (A) Pattern-discrimination Learning Is Position Specmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…Experiments in a same-different paradigm have shown that, even without any obvious learning, performance with novel visual stimuli (such as the ones in figure 1) is not entirely invariant to translation (Kahn & Foster 1981;Foster & Kahn 1985;Dill & Fahle 1997). The two tasks involve quite different decision processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of visual field position in pattern–discrimination learning

Dill

Fahle

1997

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An explanation is offered by Dill and Fahle (1998). They used a visual memory task for simple stimuli and found that accuracy decreased with changes in retinal location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remembering “what” brings along “where” in visual working memory

Olson

Marshuetz

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and CHRISTY MARSHUETZ Yale University, New Haven, ConnecticutDoes a behavioral and anatomical division exist between spatial and object working memory? In this article, we explore this question by testing human participants in simple visual working memory tasks. We compared a condition in which there was no location change with conditions in which absolute location change and absolute plus relative location change were manipulated. The results showed that object memory was influenced by memory for relative but not for absolute location information. Furthermore, we demonstrated that relative space can be specified by a salient surrounding box or by distractor objects with no touching surfaces. Verbal memory was not influenced by any type of spatial information. Taken together, these results indicate that memory for "where" influences memory for "what." We propose that there is an asymmetry in memory according to which object memory always contains location information.

show abstract

“…However, evidence is accumulating that recognition performance is position dependent as well. Several studies have shown a systematic relation between the amount of translation and recognition performance: Increasing displacement between two sequentially presented stimuli can lead to a deterioration of performance, both for novel objects (Dill & Edelman, 2001;Dill & Fahle, 1998;Foster & Kahn, 1985;Nazir & O'Regan, 1990) and familiar objects (K. R. Cave et al, 1994). These results do not appear to merely be due to eye movements or shifts of attention nor a problem of information exchange between the two hemispheres of the brain (K. R. Cave et al, 1994;Dill & Fahle, 1998).…”

Section: Size and Position Dependencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinate transformations in object recognition.

Graf¹

2006

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A basic problem of visual perception is how human beings recognize objects after spatial transformations. Three central classes of findings have to be accounted for: (a) Recognition performance varies systematically with orientation, size, and position; (b) recognition latencies are sequentially additive, suggesting analogue transformation processes; and (c) orientation and size congruency effects indicate that recognition involves the adjustment of a reference frame. All 3 classes of findings can be explained by a transformational framework of recognition: Recognition is achieved by an analogue transformation of a perceptual coordinate system that aligns memory and input representations. Coordinate transformations can be implemented neurocomputationally by gain (amplitude) modulation and may be regarded as a general processing principle of the visual cortex.Keywords: alignment, coordinate transformations, gain modulation, object recognition, reference frames How can we recognize objects regardless of spatial transformations such as plane and depth rotation, size scaling, and position changes? This ability is often discussed under the label object constancy or shape constancy. Even young children recognize objects so immediately and effortlessly that it seems to be a rather ordinary and simple task. However, changes in the spatial relation between observer and object lead to large changes of the image that is projected onto the retina. Hence, to recognize objects regardless of orientation, size, and position is not a trivial problem. No computational system proposed so far can successfully recognize objects over wide ranges of object categories and contexts.Several different approaches have been proposed over the years (for reviews, see Palmeri & Gauthier, 2004;Ullman, 1996). A number of models rely on abstract object representations, which predict that recognition performance is typically invariant regarding spatial transformations (e.g., structural description models; see Hummel & Biederman, 1992;Marr & Nishihara, 1978). In contrast, image-based or view-based models propose that object representations are close to the format of the perceptual input and therefore depend systematically on image transformations (e.g.,

show abstract

Limited translation invariance of human visual pattern recognition

Cited by 52 publications

References 81 publications

The role of visual field position in pattern–discrimination learning

The role of visual field position in pattern–discrimination learning

Remembering “what” brings along “where” in visual working memory

Coordinate transformations in object recognition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About