Visual recognition of three-dimensional (3-D) objects is relatively impaired for some particular views, called accidental views. For most familiar objects, the front and top views are considered to be accidental views. Previous studies have shown that foreshortening of the axes of elongation of objects in these views impairs recognition, but the influence of other possible factors is largely unknown. Using familiar objects without a salient axis of elongation, we found that a foreshortened symmetry plane of the object and low familiarity of the viewpoint accounted for the relatively worse recognition for front views and top views, independently of the effect of a foreshortened axis of elongation. We found no evidence that foreshortened front–back axes impaired recognition in front views. These results suggest that the viewpoint dependence of familiar object recognition is not a unitary phenomenon. The possible role of symmetry (either 2-D or 3-D) in familiar object recognition is also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF, 1955“Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns”American Journal of Psychology68209–222.
2.
BarlowH BReevesB C, 1979“The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays”Vision Research19783–793.
3.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147.
BuseyT AZakiS R, 2004“The contribution of symmetry and motion to the recognition of faces at novel orientations”Memory & Cognition32916–931.
6.
HumphreyG KJolicoeurP, 1993“An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A46137–159.
LargeM-EMcMullenP AHammJ P, 2003“The role of axes of elongation and symmetry in rotated object naming”Perception & Psychophysics651–19.
9.
LawsonR, 1999“Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation”Acta Psychologica102221–245.
10.
LawsonRHumphreysG W, 1998“View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects”Perception & Psychophysics601052–1066.
11.
LawsonRHumphreysG W, 1999“The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology”Visual Cognition6165–195.
12.
LawsonRHumphreysG WJolicoeurP, 2000“The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26568–581.
13.
LiuZKerstenD, 2003“Three-dimensional symmetric shapes are discriminated more efficiently than asymmetric ones”Journal of the Optical Society of America A201331–1340.
14.
MarrD, 1982Vision (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman).
15.
McMullenP AFarahM J, 1991“Viewpoint-centered and object-centered representations in the recognition of naturalistic line drawings”Psychological Science2275–277.
16.
MitsumatsuHYokosawaK, 2002“How do the internal details of the object contribute to recognition?”Perception311289–1298.
17.
MorikawaK, 1999“Symmetry and elongation of objects influence perceived direction of trans-lational motion”Perception & Psychophysics61134–143.
18.
NewellF NFindlayJ M, 1997“The effect of depth rotation on object identification”Perception261231–1257.
19.
PalmerSRoschEChaseP, 1981“Canonical perspectives and the perception of objects”, in Attention and Performance IX Eds LongJBaddeleyA, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 135–151.
20.
ParovelGVezzaniS, 2002“Mirror symmetry opposes splitting of chromatically homogeneous surfaces”Perception31693–709.
21.
PashlerH, 1990“Coordinate frame for symmetry detection and object recognition”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16150–163.
22.
QuinlanP THumphreysG W, 1993“Perceptual frames of reference and two-dimensional shape recognition: Further examination of internal axes”Perception221343–1346.
SekulerA B, 1994“Local and global minima in visual completion: Effects of symmetry and orientation”Perception23529–545.
25.
SekulerA B, 1996“Axis of elongation can determine reference frames for object perception”Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology50270–278.
26.
SekulerA BPalmerS E, 1992“Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General12195–111.
27.
SekulerA BSwimmerM B, 2000“Interaction between symmetry and elongation in determining reference frames for object perception”Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology5442–55.
28.
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.
29.
TrojeN FBülthoffH H, 1997“How is bilateral symmetry of human faces used for recognition of novel views?”Vision Research3879–89.
30.
VerfaillieKBoutsenL, 1995“A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects”Perception & Psychophysics57925–961.
31.
VetterTPoggioT, 1994“Symmetric 3D objects are an easy case for 2D object recognition”Spatial Vision8443–453.
32.
VetterTPoggioTBuïlthoffH H, 1994“The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition”Current Biology418–23.
33.
WagemansJ, 1995“Detection of visual symmetries”Spatial Vision99–32.
34.
WilsonK DFarahM J, 2003“When does the visual system use viewpoint-invariant representations during recognition?”Cognitive Brain Research16399–415.
