Psychological Research

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 1030–1048 | Cite as

On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition

  • Kohei NonoseEmail author
  • Ryosuke Niimi
  • Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Original Article


A three-quarter view, i.e., an oblique view, of familiar objects often leads to a higher subjective goodness rating when compared with other orientations. What is the source of the high goodness for oblique views? First, we confirmed that object recognition performance was also best for oblique views around 30° view, even when the foreshortening disadvantage of front- and side-views was minimized (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, we measured subjective ratings of view goodness and two possible determinants of view goodness: familiarity of view, and subjective impression of three-dimensionality. Three-dimensionality was measured as the subjective saliency of visual depth information. The oblique views were rated best, most familiar, and as approximating greatest three-dimensionality on average; however, the cluster analyses showed that the “best” orientation systematically varied among objects. We found three clusters of objects: front-preferred objects, oblique-preferred objects, and side-preferred objects. Interestingly, recognition performance and the three-dimensionality rating were higher for oblique views irrespective of the clusters. It appears that recognition efficiency is not the major source of the three-quarter view advantage. There are multiple determinants and variability among objects. This study suggests that the classical idea that a canonical view has a unique advantage in object perception requires further discussion.


Object Recognition Familiar Object View Goodness Oblique View Subjective Impression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Biederman, I. (2000). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: A review of recent research and theory. Spatial Vision, 13(2), 241–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(6), 1162–1182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanz, V., Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). What object attributes determine canonical views? Perception, 28(5), 575–599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boutsen, L., Lamberts, K., & Verfaillie, K. (1998). Recognition times of different views of 56 depth-rotated objects: A note concerning Verfaillie and Boutsen (1995). Perception and Psychophysics, 60(5), 900–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bramão, I., Ries, A., Petersson, K. M., & Faísca, L. (2011). The role of color information on object recognition: A review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 138, 244–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. DiCarlo, J. J., & Cox, D. D. (2007). Untangling invariant object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 333–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Maxwell Drain, H., & Tanaka, J. R. (1995). The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms. Vision Research, 35(14), 2089–2093.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 46(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 36(3), 385–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawson, R. (1999). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition, 6(2), 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 60(6), 1052–1066.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., & Jolicœur, P. (2000). The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 568–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. Mitsumatsu, H., & Yokosawa, K. (2002). How do the internal details of the object contribute to recognition? Perception, 31(11), 1289–1298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mojena, R. (1977). Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: an evaluation. The Computer Journal, 20(4), 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newell, F. N., & Findlay, J. M. (1997). The effect of depth rotation on object identification. Perception, 26(10), 1231–1257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Niimi, R., & Yokosawa, K. (2009a). Three-quarter views are subjectively good because object orientation is uncertain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Niimi, R., & Yokosawa, K. (2009b). Viewpoint dependence in the recognition of non-elongated familiar objects: Testing the effects of symmetry, front–back axis, and familiarity. Perception, 38(4), 533–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Peissig, J. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2007). Visual object recognition: do we know more now than we did 20 years ago? Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 75–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (2000). Models of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11s), 1199–1204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rolls, E. T. (2012). Invariant visual object and face recognition: Neural and computational bases, and a model. VisNet. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(35), 1–70.Google Scholar
  24. Sugio, T., Inui, T., Matuso, K., Matsuzawa, M., Glover, G. H., & Nakai, T. (1999). The role of the posterior parietal cortex in human object recognition: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience Letters, 276, 45–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tanaka, J. W., & Presnell, L. M. (1999). Color diagnosticity in object recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 61(6), 1140–1153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Terhune, K. P., Liu, G. T., Modestino, E. J., Miki, A., Sheth, K. N., Liu, C.-S. J., et al. (2005). Recognition of objects in non-canonical views: A functional MRI study. Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmonogy, 25, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dalal. N., & Triggs, B. (2005). Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 886–893.Google Scholar
  28. Troje, N. F., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1996). Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape. Vision Research, 36(12), 1761–1771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Verfaillie, K., & Boutsen, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 57(7), 925–961.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ward, J. H, Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warrington, E. K., & Taylor, A. M. (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex, 9, 152–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kohei Nonose
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ryosuke Niimi
    • 2
  • Kazuhiko Yokosawa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyThe University of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan
  3. 3.Central Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryChiyoda-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations