Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1299–1307 | Cite as

Shape constancy from novel views

  • Zygmunt Pizlo
  • Adam K. Stevenson


Prior experiments on shape constancy from novel views are inconclusive: Some show that shapes of objects can be recognized reliably from novel views, whereas others show just the opposite. Our analysis of prior results suggests that shape constancy from novel views is reliable when the object has properties that constrain its shape: The object has volumetric primitives, it has surfaces, it is symmetrical, it is composed of geons, its contours are planar, and its images provide useful topological information about its three-dimensional structure. To test the role of some of these constraints, we performed a set of experiments. Solid shapes (polyhedra) were shown on a computer monitor by means of kinetic depth effect. Experiment 1 showed that shape constancy can be reliably achieved when a polyhedron is represented by its contours (most of the constraints are present), but not when it is represented by vertices or by a polygonal line connecting the vertices in a random order (all the constraints are absent). Experiments 2 and 3 tested the role of individual constraints. Results of these experiments show that shape constancy from novel views is reliable when the object has planar contours and when the shapes of the contours together with topological information about the relations among the contours constrain the possible interpretations of the shape. Symmetry of the object and the topological stability of its image also contribute to shape constancy.


Retinal Image Topological Information Symmetry Constraint Polygonal Line Topological Constraint 
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. Attneave, F., &Frost, R. (1969). The determination of perceived tridimensional orientation by minimum criteria.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 391–396.Google Scholar
  2. Bevington, P. R. (1969).Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional view-point invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2-D view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farah, M. J., Rochlin, R., &Klein, K. L. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition.Cognitive Science,18, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hochberg, J., &Brooks, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects.American Journal of Psychology,73, 337–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  8. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A users guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Perkins, D. N. (1972). Visual discrimination between rectangular and nonrectangular parallelopipeds.Perception & Psychophvsics,12, 396–400.Google Scholar
  10. Pizlo, Z. (1994). A theory of shape constancy based on perspective invariants.Vision Research,34, 1637–1658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pizlo, Z., &Scheessele, M. R. (1998). Perception of 3D scenes from pictures.Proceedings of the SPIE,3299, 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Poggio, T. Torre, V, &Koch, C. (1985). Computational vision and regularization theory.Nature,317, 314–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rock, I., &Divita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception.Cognitive Psychology,19, 280–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stevens, K. A. (1981). The visual interpretation of surface contours.Artificial Intelligence,17, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stevens, K. A. (1986). Inferring shape from contours across surfaces. In A. P. Pentland (Ed.),From pixels to predicates: Recent advances in computational and robotic vision (pp. 93–110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  16. Tikhonov, A. N., &Goncharsky, A. V. (1987).Ill-posed problems in the natural sciences. Moscow: Mir.Google Scholar
  17. Ullman, S. (1979).The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette

Personalised recommendations