Abstract
Three priming experiments investigated the role of attention and view changes when common objects were rotated in depth. Objects were shown in prime-probe trial pairs. Experiment 1 extended findings by Stankiewicz, Hummel, and Cooper (1998) showing that attended objects primed themselves in the same but not in a reflected view, whereas ignored objects only primed themselves in the same view. In Experiment 2, depth-rotations produced changes in the visible part structure between prime and probe view of an object. Priming after depth-rotation was more reduced for attended objects than for ignored objects. Experiment 3 showed that other depth rotations that did not change the perceived part structure revealed a priming pattern similar to that in Experiment 1, with equivalent reduction in priming for attended and ignored objects. These data indicate that recognition of attended objects is mediated by a part-based (analytic) representation together with a view-based (holistic) representation, whereas ignored images are recognized in a strictly view-dependent fashion.
References
(1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115– 147
(2000). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: A review of recent research and theory. Spatial Vision, 13, 241– 253
(1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 18, 121– 133
(1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception, 20, 585– 593
(1991b). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object priming. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393– 419
(1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects - Evidence and conditions for 3-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19 (6), 1162– 1182
(1999). What object attributes determine canonical views?. Perception, 28, 575– 599
(1998). Recognition times of different views of 56 depth-rotated objects: A note concerning Verfaillie and Boutsen (1995). Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 900– 907
(2000). Perceptual priming is not a necessary consequence of semantic classification of pictures. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychogy, 53A, 289– 323
(1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89, 60– 64
(1999). The bare bones of object recognition: Implications from a case of object recognition impairment. Neuropsychologia, 37, 279– 292
(2001). A particular difficulty in discriminating between mirror images. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1022– 1036
(2003). Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73– 110
(2002). Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B - Biological Sciences, 269, 1939– 1947
(1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 24, 427– 440
(1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1511– 1521
(2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489– 517
(1992). Dynamic Binding in a Neural Network for Shape-Recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480– 517
(1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui and J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVI: Information Integration in Perception and Communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1981). Identification and processing of briefly glimpsed visual scenes. In D. Fisher (Ed.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
(1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289– 303
(1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica, 102, 221– 245
(1996). View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 22, 395– 416
(1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1052– 1066
(2000). The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two?. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 26, 568– 581
(1987). The viewpoint consistency constraint. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1, 57– 72
(1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 200, 269– 294
(1990). The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections. Memory & Cognition, 18, 99– 115
(1992). Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 18, 807– 820
(1998). Is entry-level recognition viewpoint invariant or viewpoint dependent?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 300– 304
(1999). Orientation-specific effects in picture matching and naming. Memory & Cognition, 27, 878– 889
(1993). Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 21, 604– 610
(1993). A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information. The Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 4700– 4719
(1992). Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68(1), 70– 84
(1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441– 474
(1978). Structural aspects of similarity. Memory and Cognition, 6, 91– 97
(1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1990). A network that learns to recognize 3-dimensional objects. Natur, 343 (6255), 263– 266
(2000). The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 17– 42
(1998). Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 227– 251
(1998). Are edges sufficient for object recognition?. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 24, 340– 349
(1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174– 215
(1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 21, 1019– 1036
(2002). Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape. Visual Cognition, 9, 719– 739
(1998). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of object shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 24, 732– 744
(1995). Rotating objects to recognize them - a case-study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of 3-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55– 82
(1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views - Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494– 1505
(1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape-recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233– 282
(1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?. Psychological Science, 1, 253– 256
(1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275– 277
(2004). Evidence for holistic representation of ignored images and analytic representation of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 257– 267
(1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571– 590
(1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97– 136
(1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169– 193
(1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 925– 961
(2002). Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 491– 499
(2001). Matching multicomponent objects from different viewpoints: mental rotation as normalization?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1090– 1115
