Abstract
We investigated how the difficulty of detecting a shape change influenced the achievement of object constancy across depth rotations for object identification and categorization tasks. In three sequential matching experiments, people saw pictures of morphs between two everyday, nameable objects (e.g., bath—sink morphs, along a continuum between “bath” and “sink” end-point shapes). In each experiment, both view changes and shape changes influenced performance. Furthermore, the deleterious effects of view changes were strongest when shape discrimination was hardest. In our earlier research, using morphs of novel objects, we found a similar interaction between view sensitivity and shape sensitivity (Lawson, 2004b; Lawson & Bülthoff, 2006; Lawson, Bülthoff, & Dumbell, 2003). The present results extend these findings to familiar-object morphs. They suggest that recognition remains view-sensitive at the basic level of identification for everyday, nameable objects, and that the difficulty of shape discrimination plays a critical role in determining the degree of this view sensitivity.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, T. J., & Ewbank, M. P. (2004). Distinct representations for facial identity and changeable aspects of faces in the human temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 23, 905–913.
Benton, C. P., Jennings, S. J., & Chatting, D. J. (2006). Viewpoint dependence in adaptation to facial identity. Vision Research, 46, 3313–3325.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated 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. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 480–489.
Demeyer, M., Zaenen, P., & Wagemans, J. (2007). Low-level correlations between object properties and viewpoint can cause viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Spatial Vision, 20, 79–106.
Eger, E., Schweinberger, S. R., Dolan, R. J., & Henson, R. N. (2005). Familiarity enhances invariance of face representations in human ventral visual cortex: fMRI evidence. NeuroImage, 26, 1128–1139.
Fang, F., & He, S. (2005). Viewer-centered object representation in the human visual system revealed by viewpoint aftereffects. Neuron, 45, 793–800.
Foster, D. H., & Gilson, S. J. (2002). Recognizing novel three dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1939–1947.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grill-Spector, K., Kushnir, T., Edelman, S., Avidan, G., Itzchak, Y., & Malach, R. (1999). Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron, 24, 187–203.
Hamm, J. P., & McMullen, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 413–426.
Hampton, J. A., Estes, Z., & Simmons, C. L. (2005). Comparison and contrast in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1459–1476.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 427–440.
Hayward, W. G. (2003). After the viewpoint debate: Where next in object recognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 425–427.
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.
Hayward, W. G., & Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7–12.
Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489–517.
Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49–79.
Jiang, F., Blanz, V., & O’Toole, A. J. (2007). The role of familiarity in three-dimensional view-transferability of face identity adaptation. Vision Research, 47, 525–531.
Jiang, X., Bradley, E., Rini, R. A., Zeffiro, T., VanMeter, J., & Riesenhuber, M. (2007). Categorization training results in shape- and category-selective human neural plasticity. Neuron, 53, 891–903.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–275.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Keil, F. C. (2003). Categorisation, causation, and the limits of understanding. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 663–692.
Lawson, R. (1999). Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychologica, 102, 221–245.
Lawson, R. (2004a). Depth rotation and mirror-image reflection reduce affective preference as well as recognition memory for pictures of novel objects. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1170–1181.
Lawson, R. (2004b). View sensitivity increases for same-shape matches if mismatches show pairs of more similar shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 896–902.
Lawson, R. (2008). A comparison of the effects of depth rotation on visual and haptic 3-D object recognition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lawson, R., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2006). Comparing view sensitivity in shape discrimination with shape sensitivity in view discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 655–673.
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. (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.
Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition, 6, 165–195.
Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., & Watson, D. G. (1994). Object recognition under sequential viewing conditions: Evidence for viewpoint-specific recognition procedures. Perception, 23, 595–614.
Lawson, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Recognition thresholds for plane-rotated pictures of familiar objects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 17–41.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960–983.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: Typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 70–84.
Op de Beeck, H., & Wagemans, J. (2001). Visual object categorisation at distinct levels of abstraction: A new stimulus set. Perception, 30, 1337–1361.
Pourtois, G., Schwartz, S., Seghier, M. L., Lazeyras, F., & Vuilleumier, P. (2005). View-independent coding of face identity in frontal and temporal cortices is modulated by familiarity: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 24, 1214–1224.
Rock, I., & DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280–293.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Ryu, J.-J., & Chaudhuri, A. (2006). Representations of familiar and unfamiliar faces as revealed by viewpoint-aftereffects. Vision Research, 46, 4059–4063.
Srinivas, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019–1036.
Stankiewicz, B. J. (2002). Empirical evidence for independent dimensions in the visual representation of three-dimensional shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 913–932.
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. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1–20.
Tarr, M. J., & Cheng, Y. D. (2003). Learning to see faces and objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 23–30.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.
Thoma, V., & Davidoff, J. (2006). Priming of depth-rotated objects depends on attention and part changes. Experimental Psychology, 53, 31–47.
Thoma, V., Davidoff, J., & Hummel, J. E. (2007). Priming of plane-rotated objects depends on attention and view familiarity. Visual Cognition, 15, 179–210.
Thoma, V., Hummel, J. E., & Davidoff, J. (2004). Evidence for holistic representations of ignored images and analytic representations of attended images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 257–267.
Tjan, B. S., & Legge, G. E. (1998). The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task. Vision Research, 38, 2335–2350.
Vanrie, J., Béatse, E., Wagemans, J., Sunaert, S., & Van Hecke, P. (2002). Mental rotation versus invariant features in object perception from different viewpoints: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 917–930.
Vanrie, J., Willems, B., & Wagemans, J. (2001). Multiple routes to object matching from different viewpoints: Mental rotation versus invariant features. Perception, 30, 1047–1056.
Vuilleumier, P., Henson, R. N., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 491–499.
Wilson, K. D., & Farah, M. J. (2006). Distinct patterns of viewpoint-dependent BOLD activity during common-object recognition and mental rotation. Perception, 35, 1351–1366.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a fellowship to the first author from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-27-0162).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lawson, R., Bülthoff, H.H. Using morphs of familiar objects to examine how shape discriminability influences view sensitivity. Perception & Psychophysics 70, 853–877 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.5.853
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.5.853