Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

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

Determining the orientation of depth-rotated familiar objects

  • Ryosuke NiimiEmail author
  • Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Brief Reports


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.


Familiar Object Simple Main Effect Standard Stimulus Orientation Difference Object Orientation 
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. 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