Abstract
In two experiments, the identification of novel 3-D objects was worse for depth-rotated and mirrorreflected views, compared with the study view in an implicit affective preference memory task, as well as in an explicit recognition memory task. In Experiment 1, recognition was worse and preference was lower when depth-rotated views of an object were paired with an unstudied object relative to trials when the study view of that object was shown. There was a similar trend for mirror-reflected views. In Experiment 2, the study view of an object was both recognized and preferred above chance when it was paired with either depth-rotated or mirror-reflected views of that object. These results suggest that view-sensitive representations of objects mediate performance in implicit, as well as explicit, memory tasks. The findings do not support the claim that separate episodic and structural description representations underlie performance in implicit and explicit memory tasks, respectively.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bar, M., &Biederman, I. (1998). Subliminal visual priming.Psychological Science,9, 464–469.
Bar, M., &Biederman, I. (1999). Localizing the cortical region mediating visual awareness of object identity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,96, 1790–1793.
Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming.Perception,20, 585–593.
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 for 3-D viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.
Buchner, A., &Brandt, M. (2003). Further evidence for systematic reliability differences between explicit and implicit memory tests.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 193–209.
Buchner, A., &Wippich, W. (2000). On the reliability of implicit and explicit memory measures.Cognitive Psychology,40, 227–259.
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.
Fiser, J., &Biederman, I. (2001). Invariance of long-term visual priming to scale, reflection, translation, and hemisphere.Vision Research,41, 221–234.
Hallahan, M., &Rosenthal, R. (1996). Statistical power: Concepts, procedures, and applications.Behavior Research & Therapy,34, 489–499.
Henderson, J. M., &Siefert, A. B. C. (1999). The influence of enantiomorphic transformation on transsaccadic object integration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 243–255.
Humphrey, G. K., &Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognising novel views of 3-D objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 170–190.
Jolicoeur, P. (1987). A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape.Memory & Cognition,15, 531–543.
Kunst-Wilson, W. R., &Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized.Science,207, 557–558.
Lawson, R., Bülthoff, H. H., &Dumbell, S. (2003). Interactions between view changes and shape changes in picture-picture matching.Perception,32, 1465–1498.
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.
Liu, T., &Cooper, L. A. (2001). The influence of task requirements on priming in object decision and matching.Memory & Cognition,29, 874–882.
Meier, B., &Perrig, W. J. (2000). Low reliability of perceptual priming: Consequences for the interpretation of functional dissociations between explicit and implicit memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 211–233.
Milliken, B., &Jolicoeur, P. (1992). Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size.Memory & Cognition,20, 83–95.
Newell, B. R., &Bright, J. E. H. (2003). The subliminal mere exposure effect does not generalize to structurally related stimuli.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 61–68.
Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K., &Collins, W. E. (1984). Integrating pictorial information across eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 426–442.
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 501–518.
Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., &Delaney, S. M. (1990). Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 5–24.
Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., Delaney, S. M., Peterson, M. A., &Tharan, M. (1991). Implicit memory for possible and impossible objects: Constraints on the construction of structural descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 3–19.
Seamon, J. G., &Delgado, M. R. (1999). Recognition memory and affective affective preference for depth-rotated solid objects: Part-based structural descriptions may underlie the mere exposure effect.Visual Cognition,6, 145–164.
Seamon, J. G., Ganor-Stern, D., Crowley, M. J., Wilson, S. M., Weber, W. J., O’Rourke, C. M., &Mahoney, J. K. (1997). A mere exposure effect for transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of reflection, size, or color changes on affect and recognition.Memory & Cognition,25, 367–374.
Seamon, J. G., Williams, P. C., Crowley, M. J., Kim, I. J., Langer, S. A., Orne, P. J., &Wishengrad, D. L. (1995). The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 711–721.
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.
Srinivas, K. (1996). Size and reflection effects in priming: A test of transfer-appropriate processing.Memory & Cognition,24, 441–452.
Srinivas, K., &Verfaellie, M. (2000). Orientation effects in amnesics’ recognition memory: Familiarity-based access to object attributes.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 274–290.
Stankiewicz, B. J., Hummel, J. E., &Cooper, E. E. (1998). The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: Evidence for a dual representation of object shape.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 732–744.
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. (2003). Visual object recognition: Can a single mechanism suffice? In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.),Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarr, M. J., &Cheng, Y. D. (2003). Learning to see faces and objects.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,17, 23–30.
Vernon, D., &Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (2003). The role of colour in implicit and explicit memory performance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 779–802.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Price, J. R. (2001). Implicit /explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere exposure effect.Memory & Cognition,29, 234–246.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Monographs,9 (2, Pt. 2), 1–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lawson, R. Depth rotation and mirror-image reflection reduce affective preference as well as recognition memory for pictures of novel objects. Memory & Cognition 32, 1170–1181 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196890
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196890