Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 208–214 | Cite as

Determining the orientation of depth-rotated familiar objects

Brief Reports

Abstract

How does the human visual system determine the depth-orientation of familiar objects? We examined reaction times and errors in the detection of 15° differences in the depth orientations of two simultaneously presented familiar objects, which were the same objects (Experiment 1) or different objects (Experiment 2). Detection of orientation differences was best for 0° (front) and 180° (back), while 45° and 135° yielded poorer results, and 90° (side) showed intermediate results, suggesting that the visual system is tuned for front, side and back orientations. We further found that those advantages are due to orientation-specific features such as horizontal linear contours and symmetry, since the 90° advantage was absent for objects with curvilinear contours, and asymmetric object diminished the 0° and 180° advantages. We conclude that the efficiency of visually determining object orientation is highly orientation-dependent, and object orientation may be perceived in favor of front-back axes.

References

  1. Barlow, H. B., & Reeves, B. C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research, 19, 783–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanz, V., Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). What object attributes determine canonical views? Perception, 28, 575–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callahan, J., & Weiss, R. (1985). A model for describing surface shape. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 240–245). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  4. De Caro, S. A., & Reeves, A. (2000). Rotating objects to determine orientation, not identity: Evidence from a backward-masking/dual-task procedure. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1356–1366.Google Scholar
  5. Harris, I. M., & Dux, P. E. (2005). Orientation-invariant object recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness. Cognition, 95, 73–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heeley, D. W., & Timney, B. (1988). Meridional anisotropies of orientation discrimination for sine wave gratings. Vision Research, 28, 337–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 137–159.Google Scholar
  8. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1979). The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biological Cybernetics, 32, 211–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., & Jolicoeur, P. (2000). The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 568–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McBeath, M. K., Schiano, D. J., & Tversky, B. (1997). Three-dimensional bilateral symmetry bias in judgments of figural identity and orientation. Psychological Science, 8, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitsumatsu, H., & Yokosawa, K. (2002). How do the internal details of the object contribute to recognition? Perception, 31, 1289–1298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Sakata, H., Taira, M., Kusunoki, M., Murata, A., Tsutsui, K., Tanaka, Y., et al. (1999). Neural representation of three-dimensional features of manipulation objects with stereopsis. Experimental Brain Research, 128, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55–82.Google Scholar
  15. Tarr, M. J., & Kriegman, D. J. (2001). What defines a view? Vision Research, 41, 1981–2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turnbull, O. H., Beschin, N. A., & Della Sala, S. (1997). Agnosia for object orientation: Implications for theories of object recognition. Neuropsychologia, 35, 153–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagemans, J. (1995). Detection of visual symmetries. Spatial Vision, 9, 9–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, G., Tanifuji, M., & Tanaka, K. (1998). Functional architecture in monkey inferotemporal cortex revealed by in vivo optical imaging. Neuroscience Research, 32, 33–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zabrodsky, H., Peleg, S., & Avnir, D. (1995). Symmetry as a continuous feature. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 17, 1154–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations