Current theories of representation of 3-D objects assume that they are geometrical facsimiles of represented objects and, therefore, imply that various aspects of the representations are as concordant as are those of the objects themselves. Empirical data presented here question this as they show that subjects' choices of distinct views of objects are not mutually concordant. This being so, it seems unlikely that a facsimile representation of a solid yields a full description of the process of representation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
2.
DeręgowskiJ BMcGeorgeP, 2008“Perception and the art of depiction of cylindrical objects”Perception371879–1885
3.
MarrD, 1982Vision: Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman)
4.
RussellB, 1961History of Western Philosophy (London: George Allen & Unwin)
5.
TarrM JWilliamsPHaywardW GGauthierI, 1998“Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint-dependent”Nature Neuroscience1195–206
6.
ToomelaA, 1999“Drawing development: Stages in the representation of a cube and a cylinder”Child Development701141–1150
