Viewpoint Dependence and Object Discriminability

Hayward, William G.; Williams, Pepper

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00207

Cited by 89 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both of these factors have been found to affect the recognition of objects presented as static images (eg Biederman and Gerhardstein 1993;Hayward and Williams 2000), and thus we predicted that they would also mediate the recognition of moving objects. The present results are consistent with this prediction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Both of these factors may make learning the objects more difficult and therefore influence the extent to which their dynamics are used in the recognition process. That is, motion information may be more likely to be used when objects are difficult to learn, as may be the case when the tested objects are highly similar to each other (eg Hayward and Williams 2000) or when objects are visually degraded (eg Lander and Bruce 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects

Vuong

Tarr

2006

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction We live in a dynamic environment. The interplay between our movements relative to other objects and illumination sources produces a continuously changing projection on our retinas. How does our visual system make sense of this visual cacophony to recognize objects? The conventional answer is that the visual system maps dynamic information onto structures that do not vary over time (Marr 1982). For example, popular theories hypothesize that objects are represented as parts and their relations (Biederman 1987; Marr and Nishihara 1978), or as views comprised of visible features (Bu« lthoff and Edelman 1992; Poggio and Edelman 1990; Tarr and Pinker 1989). Recently, however, several studies have underscored the need to understand how the visual system directly uses dynamic information for recognition (

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects

Vuong

Tarr

2006

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Orientation-dependent recognition performance is not limited to individual objects, like faces (e.g., Hill, Schyns, & Akamatsu, 1997) or to objects at the subordinate level of categorization (e.g., Tarr, 1995) but has also been demonstrated for basic level recognition (Hayward & Williams, 2000;Jolicoeur, Corballis, & Lawson, 1998;Lawson & Humphreys, 1998;Murray, 1998;Palmer et al, 1981). Orientation dependency has been observed in the perception of biological motion (Daems & Verfaillie, 1999;Verfaillie, 1993; for a review, see I.…”

Section: Orientation 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

“…This property of the sequential-matching task makes it an attractive tool for studying visual representation independently of other knowledge (Biederman & Gerhardstein, 1993;Ellis & Allport, 1986;Hayward & Williams, 2000;Lawson & Humphreys, 1996;Tarr, Williams, Hayward, & Gauthier, 1998) and to distinguish between perceptual and semantic impairments in neuropsychology. For instance, one of the factors used to distinguish patients with apperceptive and associative visual agnosia is their ability to perceptually match or copy objects (Farah, 1990;Humphreys & Riddoch, 1987;Kolb & Whishaw, 1996).…”

Section: Overview Of Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Conceptual Knowledge on Visual Discrimination

Gauthier

James

Curby

et al. 2003

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does conceptual knowledge about objects influence their perceptual processing? There is some evidence for interactions between semantic and visual knowledge in tasks requiring both long-term memory and lexical access. Here we assessed whether similar perceptual/semantic interactions arise during sequential visual matching, a task that does not require access to semantic information. Matching of two-dimensional or three-dimensional novel objects was facilitated when the objects were associated with arbitrarily assigned distinctive artificial semantic concepts as compared to similar semantic concepts. In contrast to prior demonstrations, this effect was obtained in a task that did not require naming objects, and was not affected by participants rehearsing consonant strings, suggesting a direct influence from semantic associations on visual object recognition.

show abstract

Viewpoint Dependence and Object Discriminability

Cited by 89 publications

References 21 publications

Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects

Structural Similarity and Spatiotemporal Noise Effects on Learning Dynamic Novel Objects

Coordinate transformations in object recognition.

The Influence of Conceptual Knowledge on Visual Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About