Skip to main content
Log in

View dependence in scene recognition after active learning

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human spatial encoding of three-dimensional navigable space was studied, using a virtual environment simulation. This allowed subjects to become familiar with a realistic scene by making simulated rotational and translational movements during training. Subsequent tests determined whether subjects could generalize their recognition ability by identifying novel-perspective views and topographic floor plans of the scene. Results from picture recognition tests showed that familiar direction views were most easily recognized, although significant generalization to novel views was observed. Topographic floor plans were also easily identified. In further experiments, novel-view performance diminished when active training was replaced by passive viewing of static images of the scene. However, the ability to make self-initiated movements, as opposed to watching dynamic movie sequences, had no effect on performance. These results suggest that representation of navigable space is view dependent and highlight the importance of spatial-temporal continuity during learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aloimonos, Y. (1993).Active perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleyard, D. (1970). Styles and methods of structuring a city.Environment & Behavior,2, 100–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, E. J. (1996).Orientation specificity in the mental representation of three-dimensional environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis St. Paul.

  • Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1992). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence for 3D viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, A., &Yuille, A. (1992).Active vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, P. R., &Herman, J. F. (1983). Spatial knowledge of young and elderly adults: Scene recognition from familiar and novel perspectives.Experimental Aging Research,9, 169–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bülthoff, H. H., Edelman, S., &Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are threedimensional objects represented in the brain?Cerebral Cortex,3, 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chance, S. S., Gaunet, F., Beall, A. C., &Loomis, J. M. (1998). Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in path integration.Presence: Special Issue on Navigation,7, 168–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diwadkar, V. A., &McNamara, T. P. (1997). View dependence in scene recognition.Psychological Science,8, 302–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hock, H. S., &Schmelzkopf, K. F. (1980). The abstraction of schematic representations from photographs of real-world scenes.Memory & Cognition,8, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. N. (1974). Visual information during locomotion. In R. B. MacLeod & H. Pick (Eds.),Perception: Essays in honour of J. J. Gibson. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, E. A., Frith, C. D., Burgess, N., Donnet, J. G., &O’Keefe, J. (1998). Knowing where things are: Parahippocampal involvement in encoding object locations in virtual large-scale space.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 61–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • May, M., Péruch, P., &Savoyant, A. (1995). Navigating in a virtual environment with map-acquired knowledge: Encoding and alignment effects.Ecological Psychology,7, 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, J. O., &Nadel, L. (1978).The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Péruch, P., &Gaunet, F. (1998). Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition.Current Psychology of Cognition,17, 881–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Péruch, P., Vercher, J. L., &Gauthier, G. M. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments.Ecological Psychology,7, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B. (1967).The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poggio, T., &Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.Nature,343, 263–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1157–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., &DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centred object perception.Cognitive Psychology,19, 280–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldson, B., McNamara, T. P., Shelton, A. L., &Carr, W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. L., Franken, R. E., Bouchard, L. M., &Sookochoff, M. B. (1978). Recognition of familiar scenes from new perspectives.Perceptual & Motor Skills,46, 2, 1287–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 102–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A. W., &White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol 10, pp. 9–55). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of threedimensional objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndyke, P. W., &Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation.Cognitive Psychology,14, 560–589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, S., &Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,13, 992–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. F., &Simons, D. J. (1997). Layout change detection is differentially affected by display rotations and observer movements [Abstract].Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,38, 4695.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

C.G.C. was supported by a scholarship from the Max-Planck Gesellchaft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christou, C.G., Bülthoff, H.H. View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Mem Cogn 27, 996–1007 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201230

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201230

Keywords

Navigation