Abstract
In a series of three experiments, we examined, first, the effects of viewpoint in depth on the efficiency of initial picture naming and, second, the effects of priming on subsequent naming. On initial presentation, foreshortened views were harder to name than were more typical (nonforeshortened) views. In addition, priming increased as a function of the similarity of the prime and target. Indeed, if a foreshortened view of an object had already been named, the subjects named a subsequent foreshortened view of that object as fast as or faster than they named a subsequent, more typical view. These results provide evidence against theories that predict full view-invariant object recognition and view-invariant priming of object recognition. Instead, the results support theories that suggest that object recognition is mediated by stored representations that are both view- and object-specific.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartram, D. J. (1974). The role of visual and semantic codes in object naming.Cognitive Psychology,6, 325–356.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming.Perception,20, 585–593.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991b). Object recognition and laterality: Null effects.Neuropsychologia,29, 685–694.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 640–645.
Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.
Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, R C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1506–1514.
Bruce, V., &Valentine, T. (1985). Identity priming in the recognition of familiar faces.British Journal of Psychology,76, 373–383.
Brunas, J., Young, A. W., &Ellis, A. W. (1990). Repetition priming from incomplete faces: Evidence for part to whole completion.British Journal of Psychology,81, 43–56.
Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Young, A. W., &Ellis, A. W. (1992). Repetition priming follows spontaneous but not prompted recognition of familiar faces.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 423–454.
Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-D view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.
Edelman, S., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects.Vision Research,32, 2385–2400.
Ellis, A. W., Young, A. W., Flude, B. M., &Hay, D. C. (1987). Repetition priming of face recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39 A, 193–210.
Ellis, R., Allport, D. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Collis, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 775–796.
Enns, J. T., &Rensink, R. A. (1990a). Influence of scene-based properties on visual search.Science,247, 721–723.
Enns, J. T., &Rensink, R. A. (1990b). Sensitivity to 3-D orientation in visual search.Psychological Science,1, 323–326.
Enns, J. T., &Rensink, R. A. (1991). Preattentive recovery of 3-D orientation from line drawings.Psychological Review,98, 335–351.
Farah, M. J., Rochlin, R., &Klein, K. L. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition.Cognitive Science,18, 325–344.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 427–440.
Humphrey, G. K., &Jolicoeur, P. (1988). Visual object identification: Some effects of image foreshortening and monocular depth cues. In Z. W. Pylyshyn (Ed.),Computational processes in human vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 429–442). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Humphrey, G. K., &Jolicoeur, P. (1993). Visual object identification: Some effects of image foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46A, 137–159.
Humphrey, G. K., &Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognising novel views of 3-D objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 170–190.
Humphrey, G. K., &Lupker, S. J. (1993). Codes and operations in picture matching.Psychological Research,55, 237–247.
Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Route to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 596–615.
Johnston, R. A., Barry, C, &Williams, C. (1996). Incomplete faces don’t show the whole picture: Repetition priming from jumbled faced.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 775–796.
Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects.Memory & Cognition,13, 289–303.
Jolicoeur, P., &Milliken, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory & Cognition,15. 200–210.
Lawson, R., &Humphreys, G. W. (1996). Viespecificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 395–416.
Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G. W. (in press). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology.Visual Cognition.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Palmer, S., Rosch, E., &Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rock, I., &Di Vita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception.Cognitive Psychology.19, 280–293.
Rock, I., Di Vita, J., &Barbeito, R. (1981). The effect on form perception of changing orientation in the third dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 719–732.
Srinivas, K. (1993). Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 582–602.
Srinivas, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1019–1036.
Tarr, M. J., &Bülthoff, H. H. (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 & Performance,21, 1494–1505.
Tarr, M. J., Hayward, W. G., Gauthier, I., & Williams, P. (1994, November). Geon recognition is viewpoint dependent. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Psychology,21, 233–283.
Warren, C, &Morton, J. (1982). The effects of priming on picture recognition.British Journal of Psychology,73, 117–129.
Warrington, E. K., &Taylor, A. M. (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition.Cortex,9, 152–164.
Warrington, E. K., &Taylor, A. M. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition.Perception,7, 695–705.
Wheeldon, L. R., &Monsell, S. (1992). The locus of repetition priming of spoken word production.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 723–761.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the Human Frontier Science Program (Grant LT-558/94) and from the Science and Engineering Research Council of Great Britain (Grant 9031212X) to the first author and by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain (Grant R000234279) to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lawson, R., Humphreys, G.W. View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 1052–1066 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211939
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211939