Skip to main content

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) shape has been studied for centuries despite the absence of a commonly accepted definition of this property. The absence of a useful definition has been a major obstacle in making progress towards understanding the mechanisms that are responsible for the perception of shape. Today, in the absence of the needed new definition, there is no consensus about whether shapes are, or can be, perceived veridically. This chapter reviews the main definitions of shape in use before our new definition was formulated, calling attention to their shortcomings. It then describes our new definition, which is based on the assumption that 3D shape is based on 3D geometrical self-similarities (3D symmetries) of an object, rather than on similarities of an object with respect to other objects. We explain the new definition by discussing the invariants of three types of symmetry groups in 3D and then derive the invariants of the perspective projection from a 3D space to a 2D image. In our definition, the invariants of 3D symmetries serve as the basis for describing the 3D shapes, and the invariants of perspective projections are essential for recovering 3D shapes from one or more 2D images. We conclude by discussing several implications of this new definition which makes it clear: (i) that the veridicality of shape perception is no longer only an empirical concept—the new definition provides a principled theory of when and how the veridicality of shape can be achieved; (ii) how shape constancy applies to non-rigid objects; (iii) that there are informative, but objective, shape priors that do not have to be learned from objects or updated on the basis of experience: these priors are the object’s symmetries and (iv) that what had loomed as a controversy between view-invariant and view-dependent shape perception has been resolved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The magnitude of a vector is unimportant in a homogeneous coordinate system. So, we can ignore det(K), which is a constant, from the cross product \(\det(K)K^{-T}((n_{Y}-n_{Y}') \times n_{X})\) of Kn X and \(K(n_{Y}-n_{Y}')\).

References

  1. Ashby FG, Perrin NA (1988) Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychol Rev 95(1):124–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94(2):115–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biederman I, Gerhardstein PC (1993) Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions from three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19(6):1162–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Binford TO (1971) Visual perception by computer. In: IEEE conference on systems and control, Miami

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chan MW, Stevenson AK, Li Y, Pizlo Z (2006) Binocular shape constancy from novel views: the role of a priori constraints. Percept Psychophys 68(7):1124–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Egan E, Todd J, Phillips F (2012) The role of symmetry in 3D shape discrimination across changes in viewpoint. J Vis 12(9):1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feldman J, Singh M (2005) Information along curves and closed contours. Psychol Rev 112(1):243–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman J, Singh M (2006) Bayesian estimation of the shape skeleton. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(47):18014–18019

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartley R, Zisserman A (2003) Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Knill DC, Richards W (1996) Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Li M, Vitanyi P (1997) An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Li Y, Pizlo Z, Steinman RM (2009) A computational model that recovers the 3D shape of an object from a single 2D retinal representation. Vis Res 49(9):979–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li Y, Sawada T, Shi Y, Kwon T, Pizlo Z (2011) A Bayesian model of binocular perception of 3D mirror symmetrical polyhedra. J Vis 11(4):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li Y, Sawada T, Latecki LM, Steinman RM, Pizlo Z (2012) Visual recovery of the shapes and sizes of objects, as well as distances among them, in a natural 3D scene. J Math Psychol 56(4):217–231

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Pizlo Z (2001) Perception viewed as an inverse problem. Vis Res 41(24):3145–3161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pizlo Z (2008) 3D shape: its unique place in visual perception. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pizlo Z, Rosenfeld A, Weiss I (1997) The geometry of visual space: about the incompatibility between science and mathematics. Comput Vis Image Underst 65:425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pizlo Z, Rosenfeld A, Weiss I (1997) Visual space: mathematics, engineering, and science. Comput Vis Image Underst 65:450–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pizlo Z, Sawada T, Li Y, Kropatsch W, Steinman RM (2010) New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume. Vis Res 50(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Poggio T, Torre V, Koch C (1985) Computational vision and regularization theory. Nature 317(6035):314–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sawada T (2010) Visual detection of symmetry of 3D shapes. J Vis 10(6):4 (22pp)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Shepard RN, Cooper LA (1982) Mental images and their transformations. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shi Y (2012) Recovering a 3D shape of a generalized cone from a single 2D image. Master’s thesis, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thompson DW (1942) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zygmunt Pizlo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Li, Y., Sawada, T., Shi, Y., Steinman, R.M., Pizlo, Z. (2013). Symmetry Is the sine qua non of Shape. In: Dickinson, S., Pizlo, Z. (eds) Shape Perception in Human and Computer Vision. Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5195-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5195-1_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5195-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics