Memory & Cognition

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 996–1007

View dependence in scene recognition after active learning

  • Chris G. Christou
  • Heinrich H. Bülthoff
Article
  • 265 Downloads

Abstract

Human spatial encoding of three-dimensional navigable space was studied, using a virtual environment simulation. This allowed subjects to become familiar with a realistic scene by making simulated rotational and translational movements during training. Subsequent tests determined whether subjects could generalize their recognition ability by identifying novel-perspective views and topographic floor plans of the scene. Results from picture recognition tests showed that familiar direction views were most easily recognized, although significant generalization to novel views was observed. Topographic floor plans were also easily identified. In further experiments, novel-view performance diminished when active training was replaced by passive viewing of static images of the scene. However, the ability to make self-initiated movements, as opposed to watching dynamic movie sequences, had no effect on performance. These results suggest that representation of navigable space is view dependent and highlight the importance of spatial-temporal continuity during learning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloimonos, Y. (1993).Active perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Appleyard, D. (1970). Styles and methods of structuring a city.Environment & Behavior,2, 100–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur, E. J. (1996).Orientation specificity in the mental representation of three-dimensional environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis St. Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1992). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence for 3D viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blake, A., &Yuille, A. (1992).Active vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruce, P. R., &Herman, J. F. (1983). Spatial knowledge of young and elderly adults: Scene recognition from familiar and novel perspectives.Experimental Aging Research,9, 169–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bülthoff, H. H., Edelman, S., &Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are threedimensional objects represented in the brain?Cerebral Cortex,3, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chance, S. S., Gaunet, F., Beall, A. C., &Loomis, J. M. (1998). Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs in path integration.Presence: Special Issue on Navigation,7, 168–178.Google Scholar
  10. Diwadkar, V. A., &McNamara, T. P. (1997). View dependence in scene recognition.Psychological Science,8, 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Hock, H. S., &Schmelzkopf, K. F. (1980). The abstraction of schematic representations from photographs of real-world scenes.Memory & Cognition,8, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, D. N. (1974). Visual information during locomotion. In R. B. MacLeod & H. Pick (Eds.),Perception: Essays in honour of J. J. Gibson. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Maguire, E. A., Frith, C. D., Burgess, N., Donnet, J. G., &O’Keefe, J. (1998). Knowing where things are: Parahippocampal involvement in encoding object locations in virtual large-scale space.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 61–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May, M., Péruch, P., &Savoyant, A. (1995). Navigating in a virtual environment with map-acquired knowledge: Encoding and alignment effects.Ecological Psychology,7, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Keefe, J. O., &Nadel, L. (1978).The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Péruch, P., &Gaunet, F. (1998). Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition.Current Psychology of Cognition,17, 881–899.Google Scholar
  19. Péruch, P., Vercher, J. L., &Gauthier, G. M. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments.Ecological Psychology,7, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B. (1967).The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  21. Poggio, T., &Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.Nature,343, 263–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1157–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rock, I., &DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centred object perception.Cognitive Psychology,19, 280–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roskos-Ewoldson, B., McNamara, T. P., Shelton, A. L., &Carr, W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowland, G. L., Franken, R. E., Bouchard, L. M., &Sookochoff, M. B. (1978). Recognition of familiar scenes from new perspectives.Perceptual & Motor Skills,46, 2, 1287–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siegel, A. W., &White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol 10, pp. 9–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of threedimensional objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thorndyke, P. W., &Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation.Cognitive Psychology,14, 560–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ullman, S., &Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,13, 992–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang, R. F., &Simons, D. J. (1997). Layout change detection is differentially affected by display rotations and observer movements [Abstract].Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,38, 4695.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris G. Christou
    • 1
  • Heinrich H. Bülthoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Port Sunlight LaboratoryUnilever ResearchEngland

Personalised recommendations