Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 62, Issue 7, pp 1356–1366 | Cite as

Rotating objects to determine orientation, not identity: Evidence from a backward-masking/dual-task procedure

  • Stefano A. De Caro
  • Adam ReevesEmail author
Article

Abstract

The effects of picture-plane rotations on times taken to name familiar objects (RTs) may reflect a process of mental rotation to stored viewpoint-specific representations: therotate-to-recognize hypothesis. Alternatively, mental rotation might be used after stored object representations are activated by a misoriented stimulus in order to verify a weak or distorted shape percept: thedouble-checking hypothesis. We tested these two accounts of rotation effects in object recognition by having subjects verify the orientations (to within 90°) and basic-level names of 14-msec, backward-masked depictions of common objects. The stimulus-mask interval (SOA) varied from 14 to 41 msec, permitting interpolation of the SOA required for 75% accuracy (SOAc). Whereas the SOAc to verify orientation increased with rotation up to 180°, the SOAc to verify identity was briefer and asymptoted at ∼60°. We therefore reject the rotate-to-recognize hypothesis, which implies that SOAc should increase steadily with rotation in both tasks. Instead, we suggest that upright and near-upright stimuli are matched by a fast direct process and that misoriented stimuli are matched at a featural level by a slightly slower view-independent process. We also suggest that rotation effects on RTs reflect apostrecognition stage of orientation verification: therotate-to-orient hypothesis, a version of double-checking that also explains the well-known reduction in orientation effects on RTs when naming repeated objects.

Keywords

Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Object Recognition Mental Rotation Object Naming Picture Plane 
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.

References

  1. Biederman, I.(1987). Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1991). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming.Perception, 20, 585–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biederman, I., &Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 121–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bongartz, W., &Scheerer, E. (1976). Two visual stores and two processing operations in tachistoscopic partial report.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 203–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Braine, L. G., Relyea, L., &Davidman, L. (1981). On how adults identify the orientation of a shape.Perception & Psvchophvsics, 29, 138–144.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, E. E., Biederman, I., &Hummel, J. E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, L. A., &Shepard, R. N. (1973). The time required to prepare for a rotated stimulus.Memory & Cognition, 1, 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes.Psychological Review, 95, 115–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Corballis, M. C., &Cullen, S. (1986). Decisions about the axes of disoriented shapes.Memory & Cognition, 14, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corballis, M. C., Zbrodoff, N. J., Shetzer, L. I., &Butler, R. B. (1978). Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits.Memory & Cognition, 6, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Caro, S. A. (1998a). On the perception of objects and their orientations.Spatial Vision, 11, 385–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. De Caro, S. A. ( 1998b).The timing of semantic and spatial representations in object recognition: Findings from an object-verification study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  13. Eriksen, C. W., &Lappin, J. S. (1964). Luminance summation-contrast reduction as a basis for certain forward and backward masking effects.Psychonomic Science, 1, 313–314.Google Scholar
  14. Farah, M. J., &Hammond, K. M. (1988). Mental rotation and orientationinvariant object recognition: Dissociable processes.Cognition, 29, 29–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukushima, K., Okada, M., &Hiroshige, K. (1994). Neocognitron with dual C-cell layers.Neural Networks, 7, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamm, J. P., &McMullen, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation or, the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinton, G. E., &Parsons, L. M. (1981). Frames of reference and mental imagery. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 261–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition.Cognition, 18, 65–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Howard, I. (1982).Human visual orientation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Hummel, J. E. (1994). Reference frames and relations in computational models of object recognition.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jolicœur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects.Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jolicœur, P. (1988). Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 461–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jolicœur, P. (1990). Identification of disoriented objects: A dualsystems theory.Mind & Language, 5, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jolicœur, P., Gluck, M. A., &Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection.Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jolicœur, P., Ingleton, M., Bartram, L., &Booth, K. S. (1993). Top-bottom and front-behind decisions on rotated objects.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 657–677.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jolicœur, P., &Milliken, B. (1989). Identification of disoriented objects: Effects of context of prior presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinsbourne, M., &Warrington, E. K. (1962). The effect of an aftercoming random pattern on the perception of brief stimuli.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawson, R., &Jolicœur, P. (1998). The effects of plane rotation on the recognition of brief masked pictures of familiar objects.Memory & Cognition, 26, 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, C. (1993). Analyzing means from repeated measures data. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.),A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Statistical issues (pp. 73–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Liss, P. (1968). Does backward masking by visual noise stop stimulus processing?Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 328–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liss, P., &Reeves, A. (1983). Interruption of dot processing by a backward mask.Perception, 12, 513–529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Maki, R. H. (1986). Naming and locating the tops of rotated pictures.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 368–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  34. Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 200, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McMullen. P. A. (1995).Identification of real world, rotated objects and orientation-specific templates. Paper presented at the Object Perception and Memory Symposium, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  36. McMullen, P. A., Hamm, J., &Jolicœur, P. (1995). Rotated object identification with and without orientation cues.Canadian Journal of Psychnlogy, 49, 133–149.Google Scholar
  37. McMullen, P. A., &Jolicœur, P. (1990). The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections.Memory & Cognition, 18, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McMullen, P. A., &Jolicœur, P. (1992). Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 807–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murray, J. E. (1995). The role of attention in the shift from orientationdependent to orientation-invariant identification of disoriented objects.Memory & Cognition, 23, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray, J. E. (1997). Flipping and spinning: Spatial transformation procedures in the identification of rotated natural objects.Memory & Cognition, 25, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murray, J. E. (1998). Is entry-level recognition viewpoint invariant or viewpoint dependent?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murray, J. E., Jolicœur, P., McMullen, P. A., &Ingleton, M. (1993). Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects.Memory & Cognition, 21, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rock, I. (1974). The recognition of disoriented figures.Scientific American, 230, 78–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rock, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rock, I.,&Divita, J. (1987). A case of view-centered object perception.Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rock, I., Divita, J., &Barbeito, R. (1981). The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothwell, C. A. (1995).Object recognition through invariant indexing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Santee, J. L., &Egeth, H. E. (1982). Independence versus interference in the perceptual processing of letters.Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.Science, 171, 701–703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spencer, T. J., &Shuntich, R. (1970). Evidence for an interruption theory of backward masking.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 198–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sperling, G. (1963). A model for visual memory tasks.Human Factors, 5, 19–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 5, 233–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1991). Orientation-dependent mechanisms in shape recognition: Further issues.Psychological Science, 2, 207–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turnbull, O. H., Laws, K. R., &McCarthy, R. A. (1995). Object recognition without knowledge of object orientation.Cortex, 31, 387–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Turvey, M. T. (1973 ). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.Psychological Review, 80, 1–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition.Cognition, 32, 193–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNortheastern UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations