Abstract
Participants viewed objects in the central visual field and then named either same or different depth-orientation views of these objects presented briefly in the left or the right visual field. The different-orientation views contained either the same or a different set of parts and relations. Viewpoint-dependent priming was observed when test views were presented directly to the right hemisphere (RH), but not when test views were presented directly to the left hemisphere (LH). Moreover, this pattern of results did not depend on whether the same or a different set of parts and relations could be recovered from the different-orientation views. Results support the theory that a specific subsystem operates more effectively than an abstract subsystem in the RH and stores objects in a manner that produces viewpoint-dependent effects, whereas an abstract subsystem operates more effectively than a specific subsystem in the LH and does not store objects in a viewpoint-dependent manner.
References
Ballard, D. H. (1986). Cortical connections and parallel processing: Structure and function.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,9, 67–120.
Bartram, D. J. (1976). Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks.Memory & Cognition,4, 593–602.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition.Cognitive Psychology,23, 393–419.
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, P. 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.
Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.
Burgund, E. D., &Marsolek, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task.Brain & Cognition,35, 239–258.
Burgund, E. D., &Marsolek, C. J. (1999a).Separable mechanisms for initial storage of unfamiliar three-dimensional objects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Burgund, E. D., &Marsolek, C. J. (1999b).When planar reorientations do and do not affect priming for unfamiliar objects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Churchland, P. S., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1992).The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh Computers.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.
Cohen, N. J., &Eichenbaum, H. (1993).Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooper, L. A., Schacter, D. L., Ballesteros, S., &Moore, C. (1992). Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of size and reflection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 43–57.
Edelman, S. (1998). Representation is representation of similarities.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,21, 449–498.
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, R., &Allport, D. A. (1986). Multiple levels of representation for visual objects: A behavioural study. In A. G. Cohen & J. R. Thomas (Eds.),Artificial intelligence and its applications (pp. 245–257). New York: Wiley.
Ellis, R., Allport, D. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Collis, J. (1989). Varieties of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 775–796.
Farah, M. J. (1990).Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farah, M. J. (1991). Patterns of co-occurrence among the associative agnosias: Implications for visual object representation.Cognitive Neuropsychology,8, 1–19.
Farah, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain specificity in visual object recognition.Current Directions in Psychological Science,1, 164–169.
Gauthier, I., &Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “greeble” expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition.Vision Research,37, 1673–1682.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline in object recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 427–440.
Hayward, W. G., &Tarr, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 1511–1521.
Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 77–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hummel, J. E., &Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition.Psychological Review,99, 480–517.
Hummel, J. E., &Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception.Spatial Vision,10, 201–236.
Hummel, J. E., &Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model for visual scrutiny.Visual Cognition,5, 49–79.
Humphrey, G. K., &Jolicoeur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis 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). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 170–190.
Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 385–415.
Jolicoeur, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dualsystems theory.Mind & Language,5, 387–410.
Koenderink, J. J. (1987). An internal representation for solid shape based on the topological properties of the apparent contour. In W. Richards & S. Ullman (Eds.),Image understanding 1985–86 (pp. 257–285). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lawson, R., &Humphreys, G. W. (1996). View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 395–416.
Lawson, R., &Humphreys, G. W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 1052–1066.
Logothetis, N. K., &Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition.Annual Review of Neuroscience,19, 577–621.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
Marsolek, C. J. (1995). Abstract-visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 375–386.
Marsolek, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition.Psychological Science,10, 111–118.
Marsolek, C. J., &Burgund, E. D. (1997). Computational analyses and hemispheric asymmetries in visual-form recognition. In S. Christman (Ed.),Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 125–158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Marsolek, C. J., &Hudson, T. E. (1999). Task and stimulus demands influence letter-case specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere.Laterality,4, 127–147.
Marsolek, C. J., Schacter, D. L., &Nicholas, C. D. (1996). Formspecific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere.Memory & Cognition,24, 539–556.
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., &O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory.Psychological Review,102, 419–457.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory.Neuropsychologia,9, 97–113.
Palmer, S., Rosch, E., &Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Poggio, T., &Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.Nature,343, 263–266.
Poggio, T. A., &Hurlbert, A. (1994). Observations on cortical mechanisms for object recognition and learning. In C. Koch & J. L. Davis (Eds.),Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain (pp. 153–182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rock, I., &DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception.Cognitive Psychology,19, 280–293.
Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans.Psychological Review,99, 195–231.
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.
Tanaka, J. W., &Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 583–592.
Tanaka, K. (1993). Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition.Science,262, 685–688.
Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 55–82.
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., Bülthoff, H. H., Zabinski, M., &Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint?Psychological Science,8, 282–289.
Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition.Cognition,32, 193–254.
Ullman, S. (1996).High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Verfaillie, K., &Boutsen, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 925–961.
Wagemans, J., Gool, L., &Lamote, C. (1996). The visual system’s measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant.Psychological Science,7, 232–236.
Warrington, E. K., &Taylor, A. M. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition.Perception,7, 695–705.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Parts of this research were reported earlier at the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco (1998). Funding for this work came from the Center for Cognitive Sciences in conjunction with the National Science Foundation (GER 9454163), the Office of the Vice President for Research, and Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota. In addition, we thank Beth Lavin and the Summer Research Experience for Undergraduates program, Center for Cognitive Sciences, University of Minnesota, as well as Jeremy Blessing, Lorien Parson, Kelly Pucel, Anna Shier, and Brett Stephan for their assistance with data collection and analysis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burgund, E.D., Marsolek, C.J. Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychon Bull Rev 7, 480–489 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214360
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214360