Previous research has shown that object recognition from different viewpoints often yields strong effects of viewpoint. However, for some objects and experimental paradigms almost complete viewpoint invariance is obtained. This suggests the existence of multiple routes to object recognition. In this study we further strengthen this notion by designing two different conditions using the same experimental paradigm (simultaneous matching) and highly similar objects (multiblock figures). In the first condition (involving a handedness violation), strong effects of viewpoint were obtained. In the second condition (involving an invariance violation), the effects of viewpoint were negligible. This result illustrates that asking under what circumstances object recognition is viewpoint dependent or independent is more fruitful than attempting to show that object recognition is either viewpoint dependent or independent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanIBarM, 1999“One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects”Vision Research392885–2899
2.
BiedermanIGerhardsteinP C, 1993“Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three dimensional viewpoint invariance”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance191162–1182
3.
BülthoffH HEdelmanS YTarrM J, 1995“How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain?”Cerebral Cortex3247–260
4.
CohenDKubovyM, 1993“Mental rotation, mental representation, and flat slopes”Cognitive Psychology25351–382
5.
CorballisM C, 1988“Recognition of disoriented shapes”Psychological Review95115–123
FarahM JHammondK M, 1988“Mental rotation and orientation-invariant object recognition: Dissociable processes”Cognition2929–46
8.
HaywardW GTarrM J, 1997“Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance231511–1521
9.
HaywardW GWilliamsP, 2000“Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability”Psychological Science117–12
10.
HumphreysG WRiddochM J, 1984“Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A37469–495
11.
JohnstonM BHayesA, 2000“An experimental comparison of viewpoint-specific and viewpoint-independent models of object representation”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A53792–824
12.
KosslynS M, 1994Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
13.
KosslynS MAlpertN MThompsonW LChabrisC FRauchS LAndersonA K, 1994“Identifying objects seen from different viewpoints: A PET investigation”Brain1171055–1071
14.
KukkonenH TFosterD HWoodJ RWagemansJVan GoolL, 1996“Qualitative cues in the discrimination of affine-transformed minimal patterns”Perception25195–206
15.
LawsonR, 1999“Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation”Acta Psychologica102221–245
16.
LogothetisN KSheinbergD L, 1996“Visual object recognition”Annual Review of Neuroscience19577–621
17.
PerrettD LOramM WAshbridgeE, 1998“Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: An account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations”Cognition67111–145
18.
ShepardR NMetzlerJ, 1971“Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects”Science171701–703
19.
TakanoY, 1989“Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types”Cognitive Psychology211–59
20.
TarrM 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 & Review255–82
21.
TarrM JBülthoffH HZabinskiMBlanzV, 1997“To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint?”Psychological Science8282–289
22.
TarrM JWilliamsPHaywardW GGauthierI, 1998“Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent”Nature Neuroscience1275–277
23.
TjanB SLeggeG E, 1998“The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task”Vision Research382335–2350
24.
ToddJ TChenLNormanJ F, 1998“On the relative salience of Euclidean, affine, and topological structure for 3-D form discrimination”Perception27273–282
25.
VanrieJBéatseEWagemansJSunaertSVan HeckeP, 2001“Mental rotation versus invariant features in object perception from different viewpoints: An fMRI-study”Neuropsychologia (in press)
26.
VeceraS P, 1998“Visual object representation: An introduction”Psychobiology26281–308
27.
VerfaillieK, 1992“Variant points of view on viewpoint invariance”Canadian Journal of Psychology46215–235
28.
WagemansJ, 1993“Skewed symmetry: A nonaccidental property used to perceive visual forms”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19364–380
29.
WagemansJVan GoolLLamoteC, 1996“The visual system's measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant”Psychological Science7232–236
30.
WagemansJVan GoolLLamoteCFosterD H, 2000“Minimal information to determine affine shape equivalence”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26443–468
31.
WillemsBWagemansJ, 2000“The viewpoint-dependency of veridicality: Psychophysics and modeling”Vision Research403017–3027
32.
WillemsBWagemansJ, 2001“Matching multi-component objects from different viewpoints: Mental rotation as normalization?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27 (in press)
