Abstract
Neuropsychological investigations of visual imagery and representations have led to a deeper understanding of the spatial perception, representation and memory. But how each individual perceives object’s geometrical properties and how they differ from person to person, both under event-related memory and normal recollecting memory in the presence or in the absence of direct sensory stimulation is still unclear. Spatial knowledge is diverse, complex, and multi-modal, as are the situations in which it is used. All seem to agree that a cognitive map is a mental representation of an external environment. The image scaling is important in understanding the psychological dysfunctions of patients suffering from spatial cognition problems. The scaling becomes self-evident in art forms, when people are asked to draw image of objects they see actively or from their short or long term memory. In this paper we develop a comprehensive model of this scaling factor and its implications in spatial image representation and memory. We also extend its notion in understanding the perception of objects whose representations are normally not possible (like the perception of universal scales, infinities and parallel lines) but are well comprehended by the human brains. Here we give a scaling factor which is variable depending on the situations for a person based on his visual memory and drawing capabilities. And then extend it to analyse his cognitive strengths, disorders and any imperfections. This model also helps in formalizing the architectural cognitive maps needed to change the scaling factor, depending on the types of visual works one performs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Anderson JR (1978) Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychol Rev 85:249–277
Ashbridge E., Perrett DI, Oram MW, Jellema T (2000) Effect of image orientation and size on object recognition: responses of single units in the Macaque monkey temporal cortex, UkCog. Cogn Neuropsychol 17(1/2/3):13–34
Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behav Brain Sci 22:577–660
Biederman I (1987) Recognition by components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94:115–147
Biederman I, Cooper EE (1991) Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception 20:585–593
Blaschke , Strobl (2001) What’s wrong with pixels? Some recent developments interfacing remote sensing and GIS. In: GeoBIT/GIS, vol 6, pp 12–17
Bookstein FL (1996) Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull Math Biol 58:313–365
Borg I, Lingoes J (1987) Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Carne TK (1990) The geometry of shape spaces. Proc Lond Math Soc 61:407–432
Edelman S (1995) Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes. Minds Mach 5:45–68
Edelman S (1999) Representation and recognition in vision. MIT Press, Cambridge
Edelman S, Duvdevani-Bar S (1997) Visual recognition and categorization on the basis of similarities to multiple class prototypes. A. I. Memo no. 1615. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Hilgetag et al (1996) Enhanced perspective: indeterminate organization of the visual system. Science 776
Faillenot I, Decety J, Jeannerod M (1999) Human brain activity related to the perception of spatial features of objects. NeuroImage 10:114–124. Article ID nimg.1999.0449. Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com
Kendall DG (1984) Shape manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81–121
Kruskal JB (1977) The relationship between multidimensional scaling and clustering. In: Ryzin JV (eds) Classification and clustering. Academic Press, New York pp 17–44
Marr D, Nishihara HK (1978) Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional structure. Proc R Soc Lond B 200:269–294
Smith LB, Gasser M, Sandhofer CM (1997) Learning to talk about the properties of objects: a network model of the development of dimensions. In: Medin D, Goldstone R, Schyns P (eds) Mechanisms of perceptual learning. Academic Press, New York pp 220–256
Treisman AM, Kanwisher NG (1998) Perceiving visually presented objects: recognition, awareness, and modularity. Curr Opin Neurobiol 8:218–226
Walter J, Ritter H (2002) In: Hand D, Keim D, Ng R (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. Assoc. Computing Machinery, New York, pp 123–131
Zeki S (2001) Localization and globalization in conscious vision. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:57–86
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank K. Satyanarayana, Associate Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India and Dr. Ram Reddy, Head, Department of Physiology, Osmania Medical College, NTR University of Health Sciences, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India, for stimulating discussions, encouragement and helpful comments about the manuscript; G. Venkat Reddy, Assistant, Department of Biomedical engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India; Shreenath Sudheer Kumar, Jr. Assistant, Department of Biomedical engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University Hyderabad, India for their cooperation and services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ganji, S.K., Potula, I., Ambati, V.N.P. et al. Image representation, scaling and cognitive model of object perception. Cogn Process 7 (Suppl 1), 37–39 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0056-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0056-8