Two studies of the discrimination of three-dimensional mirror-reflected objects were concerned with the influence of practice and stimulus information for shape, specifically binocular information and perspective transformations. In the first study subjects made ‘same-different’ responses to successively presented pairs of real objects, under binocular and monocular viewing conditions. In the second study subjects viewed object pairs on a rotating turntable, in five different displays. Neither binocular information nor perspective transformations contributed to isomorph discrimination. In both studies mental rotation and other less well specified strategies were employed. After practice, in contrast to previous reports, five of the six subjects in these studies produced reaction times unrelated to the orientation difference between the objects. These practice effects may reflect either extremely rapid rotation rates, the detection of rotationally invariant features, or the use of multiple strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshtonRMcFarlandKWalshFWhiteK, 1978“Imagery ability and the identification of hands: A chronometric analysis”Acta Psychologica42253–262.
2.
BraunsteinM L, 1976Depth Perception through Motion (New York: Academic Press).
CooperL A, 1975“Mental transformation of random 2-D shapes”Cognitive Psychology720–43.
5.
CooperL A, 1976“Individual differences in visual comparison processes”Perception and Psychophysics19433–44.
6.
CooperL AShepardR N, 1978“Transformations on representations of objects in space” in Handbook of Perception Volume X, Perceptual Ecology, Eds CarteretteE CFriedmanM P, (New York: Academic Press).
7.
CorballisM CBealeI L, 1976The Psychology of Left and Right (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
8.
GibsonE J, 1969Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).
9.
GibsonJ J, 1950Perception of the Visual World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
10.
GibsonJ J, 1966The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
11.
GibsonJ J, 1979An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
12.
GibsonJ JGibsonE J, 1957“Continuous perspective transformations and the perception of rigid motion”Journal of Experimental Psychology54129–138.
13.
GogelW C, 1972“Depth adjacency and cue effectiveness”Journal of Experimental Psychology63176–181.
14.
Von HelmholtzH, 1867A Treatise on Physiological OpticsVolume 3 Translated into English by SouthallJ P C, (New York: Dover Books, 1962).
15.
HintonG EParsonsL M, 1981“Frames of reference and mental imagery”, in Attention and Performance IX Eds BaddeleyALongJ (New Jersey: Hillsdale Erlbaum).
16.
HockH STromleyC, 1978“Mental rotation and perceptual uprightness”Perception and Psychophysics24529–533.
17.
HuffmanD, 1971“Impossible objects as nonsentences” in Machine Intelligence Eds MeltzerBMichieD (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
18.
HuttenlocherJPressonC C, 1973“Mental rotation and the perspective problem”Cognitive Psychology4277–299.
19.
HuttenlocherJPressonC C, 1979“The coding and transformation of spatial information”Cognitive Psychology11375–394.
20.
JohanssonG, 1964“Perception of motion and changing form”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology5181–208.
21.
JohanssonG, 1978“Spatial constancy and motion in visual perception” in Stability and Constancy in Visual Perception Ed. EpsteinW (New York: John Wiley)
22.
JustMCarpenterP, 1976“Eye fixations and cognitive processes”Cognitive Psychology8441–480.
23.
KleinR, 1977“Stereopsis and the perception of space”Perception6327–332.
24.
MetzlerJ, 1973Cognitive Analogue of the Rotation of 3-D Objectsunpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
25.
MetzlerJShepardR N, 1974“Transformational studies of the internal representation of 3-D objects” in Theories in Cognitive Psychology Ed. SolsoR L (New York: John Wiley.
26.
MinskyM, 1975“A framework for representing knowledge” in The Psychology of Computer Vision Ed. WinstonP H (New York: McGraw-Hill).
27.
PetrusicWVarroLJamiesonD G, 1978“Mental rotation validation of two spatial ability tests”Psychological Research40139–148.
28.
PylyshynZ W, 1979“The rate of ‘mental rotation’ of images: A test of a holistic analogue hypothesis”Memory and Cognition719–28.
29.
RockI, 1973Orientation and Form (New York: Academic Press).
30.
ShepardR N, 1981“Psychophysical complementarity” in Perceptual Organization Eds KubovyMPomerantzJ R (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
31.
ShepardR NJuddJ A, 1976“Perceptual illusion of rotation of 3-D objects”Science191952–954.
32.
ShepardR NMetzlerJ, 1971“Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects”Science171701–703.
33.
TapleyS MBrydenM P, 1977“An investigation of sex differences in spatial ability mental rotation of 3-D objects”Canadian Journal of Psychology31122–130.
34.
WallachHO'ConnellD N, 1953“The kinetic depth effect”Journal of Experimental Psychology45205–217.
35.
WaltzD, 1975“Understanding of line drawings of scenes with shadows” in The Psychology of Computer Vision Ed. WinstonP H (New York: McGraw-Hill).
36.
YoungJ MPalefS RLoganG D, 1980“The role of mental rotation in letter processing by children and adults”Canadian Journal of Psychology34265–269.
