Abstract
In two experiments, memory was tested for changes in viewpoints in naturalistic scenes. In the key study condition, participants viewed two images of the same scene from viewpoints 40° apart. There were two other study conditions: The two study images were identical or were of different scenes. A test image followed immediately, and participants judged whether it was identical to either of the study images. The scene in the test image was always the same as in a study image and was at least 20° from any study image on different trials. Two models were tested: (1) views stored and retrieved independently and (2) views combined at retrieval. The crucial test of these hypotheses involved a comparison (in the key study condition) of the interpolation condition (the test image was presented between the two study images and 20° from both) and the extrapolation condition (it was 20° from one study image and 60° from the other). Performance in the interpolation condition was far worse than what was predicted by the first model, whereas the second model fit the data quite well. The latter model is parsimonious in that it integrates previous experiences without requiring the integration of the views in memory. We review some of this model’s broader implications.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 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.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2001). Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience. Advances in Child Development & Behavior, 28, 41–100.
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.
Bülthoff, I., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2003). Image-based recognition of biological motion, scenes, and objects. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Analytic and holistic processes in the perception of faces, objects, and scenes (pp. 146–176). New York: Oxford University Press.
Christou, C., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27, 996–1007.
Edelman, S. (1999). Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Friedman, A., & Waller, D. (2008). View combination in scene recognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 467–478.
Garsoffky, B., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2007). Changing viewpoints during dynamic events. Perception, 36, 366–374.
Garsoffky, B., Schwan, S., & Hesse, F. W. (2002). Viewpoint dependency in the recognition of dynamic scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 1035–1050.
Henderson, J. M. (2007). Regarding scenes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 219–222.
Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243–271.
Hintzman, D. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.
Hock, H. S., & Schmelzkopf, K. F. (1980). The abstraction of schematic representations from photographs of real-world scenes. Memory & Cognition, 8, 543–554.
Huff, M., Schwan, S., & Garsoffky, B. (2007). The spatial representation of dynamic scenes—An integrative approach. In T. Barkowsky, M. Knauff, G. Ligozat, & D. R. Montello (Eds.), Spatial cognition: Reasoning, action, interaction (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 4387, pp. 140–155). Berlin: Springer.
Humphrey, G. K., & Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 170–190.
Kourtzi, Z., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2003). Representation of the perceived 3-D object shape in the human lateral occipital complex. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 911–920.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Visual information-processing: Artificial intelligence and sensorium of sight. Technology Review, 81, 28–49.
Nakatani, C., Pollatsek, A., & Johnson, S. H. (2002). Viewpoint-dependent recognition of scenes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 115–119.
Peissig, J. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2007). Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 75–96.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106.
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., Zabinski, M., & Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychological Science, 8, 282–289.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233–282.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.
Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193–254.
Ullman, S., & Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 13, 992–1006.
Wallis, G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). Effects of temporal association on recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 4800–4804.
Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 29–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by Grant HD26765 from the National Institutes of Health, by a grant from Microsoft to K.R., and by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to M.S.C.
Note—Accepted by the previous editorial team, when Thomas H. Carr was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castelhano, M.S., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. Integration of multiple views of scenes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 490–502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.490
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.490