The way in which human subjects distribute their time when attempting to learn the surface appearance of objects placed on a stand free to rotate about its vertical axis was investigated. Experiments were undertaken to establish whether observers concentrate their time on particular views and, if so, to determine the image characteristics of the preferred views. For tetrahedra, subjects concentrated on views which presented a face or an edge centred on the line of sight. Both of these views were symmetric about the vertical axis. For potatoes as examples of opaque smooth objects, subjects concentrated on four views in which the object's principal (long) axis was oriented side-on or end-on to their line of sight. For such views the horizontal width (and surface area) of the object's image had maximum and minimum values. Preferred views were not systematically related to views defined as stable from the appearance of surface boundaries or ‘singularities’.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF, 1954“Some informational aspects of visual perception”Psychological Review61183–193
2.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
3.
BruceCDesimoneRCrossC, 1981“Visual properties of neurons in a polysensory area in superior temporal sulcus of the macaque”Journal of Neurophysiology46369–384
4.
CallahanJWeissR, 1985“A model for describing surface shape” in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (New York: IEEE Computer Society) pp 240–245
5.
DavisDPerrettD IHarriesM H, 1988“Recognition of preferred and non-preferred views” (in preparation)
6.
DesimoneRAlbrightT DGrossC GBruceC, 1984“Stimulus-selective properties of inferior temporal neurons in the macaque”Journal of Neuroscience42051–2062
7.
FeldmanJ A, 1985“Four frames suffice: A provisional model of vision and space”Behavioural Brain Sciences8260–313
8.
GrayM, 1986“Recognition planning from solid models”Proceedings of the Alvey Computer Vision and Image Interpretation Meeting, Bristol, September 1986 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press) pp 41–43
9.
GreenR TCourtisM C, 1966“Information theory and figure perception: The metaphor that failed”Acta Psychologia2512–36
10.
GuzmanA, 1968“Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies” in AFIPS Conference ProceedingsVolume 33 (Washington, DC: Thompson) pp 291–304
11.
HarriesM HPerrettD ILavenderA, 1989“Visual inspection during encoding and recognition of 3-D heads”Perception forthcoming
12.
HoffmanD DRichardsW A, 1984“Parts of recognition”Cognition1865–96
13.
HumphreysG WRiddochM J, 1984“Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology36A385–415
14.
KennedyJ MDomanderR, 1985“Shape and contour: The points of maximum change are least useful for recognition”Perception14367–370
15.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1976“The singularities of the visual mapping”Biological Cybernetics2451–59
16.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1979“The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision”Biological Cybernetics32211–216
17.
LavenderA, 1988Characteristic Views and Visual Inspection with Respect to Lighting Differences BSc thesis, Department of Psychology, University of St Andrews, UK
18.
MarrD, 1977“Analysis of occluding contour”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B197441–475
19.
MarrD, 1982Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman)
20.
MarrDNishiharaH K, 1978“Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B200269–294
21.
PentlandA, 1986“Perceptual organisation and the representation of natural form” in Readings in Computer Vision—Issues, Problems, Principles and Paradigms eds FisculerM AFirscheinO (Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann) pp 680–699
22.
PerrettD IHarriesM HMistlinA JChittyA J, 1987a“Three stages in the classification of body movements by visual neurons” in Images and Understanding eds BarlowHBlakemoreCWeston-SmithM (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) in press
23.
PerrettD IMistlinA JChittyA J, 1987b“Visual neurones responsive to faces”Trends in Neurosciences10358–364
24.
PerrettD IMistlinA JPotterD DSmithP A JHeadA SChittyA JBroennimannRMilnerA DJeevesM A, 1986“Functional organization of visual neurones processing face identity” in Aspects of Face Processing eds EllisHJeevesM ANewcombeFYoungA (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff) pp 187–198
25.
PerrettD IRollsE TCaanW, 1982“Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex”Experimental Brain Research47329–342
26.
PerrettD ISmithP A JMistlinA JChittyA JHeadA SPotterD DBroennimannRMilnerA DJeevesM A, 1985a“Visual analysis of body movements by neurones in the temporal cortex of the macaque monkey: A preliminary report”Behavioral Brain Research16153–170
27.
PerrettD ISmithP A JPotterD DMistlinA JHeadA SMilnerA DJeevesM A, 1985b“Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B223293–317
28.
PerrettD ISmithP A JPotterD DMistlinA JHeadA SMilnerA DJeevesM A, 1984“Neurones responsive to faces in the temporal cortex: Studies of functional organization, sensitivity to identity and relation to perception”Human Neurobiology3197–208
29.
RiegerJ H, 1986“Families of views of piecewise smooth objects”Proceedings of the Alvey Computer Vision and Image Interpretation Meeting, Bristol, 1986 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press) pp 44–47
30.
WarringtonE KJamesM, 1986“Visual object recognition in patients with right-hemisphere lesions: Axes or features?”Perception15355–366
31.
WarringtonE KTaylorA M, 1973“The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition”Cortex9152–164
32.
WhitneyH, 1955“On singularities of mappings of Euclidean space. I. Mappings of the plane into the plane”Annals of Mathematics62374–410
