Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
A three-quarter view, i.e., an oblique view, of familiar objects often leads to a higher subjective goodness rating when compared with other orientations. What is the source of the high goodness for oblique views? First, we confirmed that object recognition performance was also best for oblique views around 30° view, even when the foreshortening disadvantage of front- and side-views was minimized (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, we measured subjective ratings of view goodness and two possible determinants of view goodness: familiarity of view, and subjective impression of three-dimensionality. Three-dimensionality was measured as the subjective saliency of visual depth information. The oblique views were rated best, most familiar, and as approximating greatest three-dimensionality on average; however, the cluster analyses showed that the “best” orientation systematically varied among objects. We found three clusters of objects: front-preferred objects, oblique-preferred objects, and side-preferred objects. Interestingly, recognition performance and the three-dimensionality rating were higher for oblique views irrespective of the clusters. It appears that recognition efficiency is not the major source of the three-quarter view advantage. There are multiple determinants and variability among objects. This study suggests that the classical idea that a canonical view has a unique advantage in object perception requires further discussion.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,19(6), 1162–1182. PubMed
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology,46(1), 137–159. CrossRef
Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology,36(3), 385–415. CrossRef
Lawson, R. (1999). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition,6(2), 165–195. CrossRef
Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., & Jolicœur, P. (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(2), 568–581. PubMed
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman.
Mojena, R. (1977). Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: an evaluation. The Computer Journal,20(4), 359–363. CrossRef
Niimi, R., & Yokosawa, K. (2009a). Three-quarter views are subjectively good because object orientation is uncertain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,16(2), 289–294. CrossRef
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.
Rolls, E. T. (2012). Invariant visual object and face recognition: Neural and computational bases, and a model. VisNet. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience,6(35), 1–70.
Terhune, K. P., Liu, G. T., Modestino, E. J., Miki, A., Sheth, K. N., Liu, C.-S. J., et al. (2005). Recognition of objects in non-canonical views: A functional MRI study. Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmonogy,25, 273–279. CrossRef
Dalal. N., & Triggs, B. (2005). Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 886–893.
Ward, J. H, Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association,58(301), 236–244. CrossRef
- On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg