Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types

Takano, Yohtaro

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90002-9

Cited by 100 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, in many experimental demonstrations of the orientation-invariance of shape recognition, the objects could have contained one or more diagnostic local features that allowed subjects to discriminate them without processing their shapes fully. Takano (1989) notes that shapes can possess both "orientationbound" and "orientation-free" information, and if a shape can be uniquely identified by the presence of orientation-free information, mental rotation is unnecessary. The presence of orientation-free local diagnostic features was deliberate in the design of Eley's (1982) stimuli, and he notes that it is unclear whether detecting such features is a fundamental recognition process or a result of particular aspects of experimental tasks such as extensive familiarization with the stimuli prior to testing and small set sizes.…”

Section: Evidence Interpreted As Showing That Mental Rotation Is Used Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition

Tarr

Pinker

1989

Cognitive Psychology

734

702

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we recognize objects despite differences in their retinal projections when they are seen at different orientations? Marr and Nishihara (1978) proposed that shapes are represented in memory as structural descriptions in objectcentered coordinate systems, so that an object is represented identically regardless of its orientation. An alternative hypothesis is that an object is represented in memory in a single representation corresponding to a canonical orientation, and a mental rotation operation transforms an input shape into that orientation before input and memory are compared. A third possibility is that shapes are stored in a set of representations, each corresponding to a different orientation. In four experiments, subjects studied several objects each at a single orientation, and were given extensive practice at naming them quickly, or at classifying them as normal or mirror-reversed, at several orientations. At first, response times increased with departure from the study orientation, with a slope similar to those obtained in classic mental rotation experiments. This suggests that subjects made both judgments by mentally transforming the orientation of the input shape to the one they had initially studied. With practice, subjects recognized the objects almost equally quickly at all the familiar orientations. At that point they were probed with the same objects appearing at novel orientations. Response times for these probes increased with increasing disparity from the previously trained orientations. This indicates that subjects had stored representations of the shapes at each of the practice orientations and recognized shapes at the new orientations by rotating them to one of the stored orientations. The results are consistent with a hybrid of the second (mental transformation) and third (multiple view) hypotheses of shape recognition: input shapes are transformed to a stored view, either the one at the nearest orientation or one at a canonical orientation. Interestingly, when mirrorimages of trained shapes were presented for naming, subjects took the same time at all orientations. This suggests that mental transformations of orientation can take the shortest path of rotation that will align an input shape and its memorized counterpart, in this case a rotation in depth about an axis in the picture plane.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Interpreted As Showing That Mental Rotation Is Used Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition

Tarr

Pinker

1989

Cognitive Psychology

734

702

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mirror nition have confirmed that superimposing an image is not necessary for recognizing the form ofan object (e.g., Biederman, 1987;Marr, 1982;Takano, 1989). This problem is especially conspicuous when a viewer sees the mirror image of an alphanumeric character.…”

Section: Facementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A form and its mirror image are different from each other only in orientational relationships among the figural elements that constitute each form (Takano, 1989). Imagine, for example, an uppercase letter, L, and its mirror image.…”

Section: Orientational Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The object-centered coordinate system does not provide a reasonable account for such an influence. Takano (1989) showed that both presence and absence of the influence of an orientational change can be explained by substituting a subject-centered coordinate system (referred to here as the "representational frame") for the object-centered coordinate system. This subject refers to a subject who constructs the cognitive representation of an object's form.…”

Section: Orientational Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why does a mirror image look left-right reversed? A hypothesis of multiple processes

Takano

1998

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a solution to the mirror reversal problem: Why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down? The paper first reviews past hypotheses and shows that none of them has succeeded in explaining all the related phenomena. It then proposes a multiprocess hypothesis based on the insight that what is called a mirror reversal is actually composed of three different types of reversal: The Type I reversal is produced by the discrepancy between an orientational framework that is aligned with a viewer's body and the one that is assumed in the viewer's mirror image; the Type II reversal is produced by the discrepancy between the mental representation of an object and its mirror image; and the Type III reversal is produced by a mirror's optical transformation. The proposed hypothesis is shown to provide reasonable accounts for all the related phenomena disputed in the past literature.When a viewer faces a plane mirror, alphanumeric characters are illegible because their left and right sides are reversed; a watch around the viewer's left wrist is seen on the right wrist of the viewer's own mirror image. Why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down? Although a number of psychologists, philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians have been discussing this mirror reversal problem for nearly half a century, no satisfactory answer has ever been obtained (lttelson, Mowafy, & Magid, 1991;Morris, 1993). This paper first reviews major hypotheses that have been presented to answer this problem, along with criticisms raised against them. It then proposes a multiprocess hypothesis and shows how it explains the mirror reversal and related phenomena. It will also be shown that the proposed hypothesis is invulnerable to those criticisms. PAST HYPOTHESESIn the past literature, six relatively independent principles ofexplanation can be identified, though some ofthem may be combined to provide a single answer. This section will examine how each principle was employed to form an answer to the mirror reversal problem and how it failed.Before reviewing the preceding hypotheses, it seems appropriate to examine the view that there is no real problem to be solved. This view asserts that the mirror reversal problem is a pseudoproblem because a form and its mirror image are geometrically isomorphic in that they can be brought into coincidence by appropriate geometric operations. According to this line of argument, however, one YT. is grateful to Ulric Neisser for his warm support concerning the present paper. Correspondence should be addressed to Y Takano, Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan (e-mail: Itaro@hongo.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp). 37could maintain that the Muller-Lyer illusion, for example, is not worth investigating because the two compared lines are identical in length from a geometrical point of view. The mirror reversal problem arises from a discrepancy in recognized directions, just as the Muller-Lyer illusion ar...

show abstract

“…Les régions préfrontales seraient également responsables des processus de reconnaissance de type descendant (Desimone et al, 1995). Dans ses recherches, Takano (1989) (Awh et al, 2003). Ils permettraient la localisation des stimuli importants en ignorant les distractions et éléments qui ne sont pas pertinents.…”

Section: Modèles Cognitifs De La Reconnaissance Visuelleunclassified

Implication des fonctions exécutives et mise en évidence d items significatifs dans le test d organisation visuelle de Hooper

Mailloux¹

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types

Cited by 100 publications

References 34 publications

Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition

Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition

Why does a mirror image look left-right reversed? A hypothesis of multiple processes

Implication des fonctions exécutives et mise en évidence d items significatifs dans le test d organisation visuelle de Hooper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About