Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 289–294 | Cite as

Three-quarter views are subjectively good because object orientation is uncertain

Brief Reports

Abstract

Because the objects that surround us are three-dimensional, their appearance and our visual perception of them change depending on an object’s orientation relative to a viewpoint. One of the most remarkable effects of object orientation is that viewers prefer three-quarter views over others, such as front and back, but the exact source of this preference has not been firmly established. We show that object orientation perception of the threequarter view is relatively imprecise and that this impreciseness is related to preference for this view. Human vision is largely insensitive to variations among different three-quarter views (e.g., 45° vs. 50°); therefore, the three-quarter view is perceived as if it corresponds to a wide range of orientations. In other words, it functions as the typical representation of the object.

References

  1. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2191–2200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biederman, I. (2001). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: A review of recent research and theory. Spatial Vision, 13, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885–2899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanz, V., Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). What object attributes determine canonical views? Perception, 28, 575–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). The effects of view in depth on the identification of line drawings and silhouettes of familiar objects: Normality and pathology. Visual Cognition, 6, 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., & Jolicœur, P. (2000). 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
  11. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. Mitsumatsu, H., & Yokosawa, K. (2002). How do the internal details of the object contribute to recognition? Perception, 31, 1289–1298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Møller, A. P. (1992). Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature, 357, 238–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newell, F. N., & Findlay, J. M. (1997). The effect of depth rotation on object identification. Perception, 26, 1231–1257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Niimi, R., & Yokosawa, K. (2008). Determining the orientation of depth-rotated familiar objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palmer, S. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In J. [B.] Long & A. [D.] Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Sebrechts, M. M., & Garner, W. R. (1981). Stimulus-specific consequences of pattern goodness. Memory & Cognition, 9, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Senior, C. (2003). Beauty in the brain of the beholder. Neuron, 38, 525–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Verfaillie, K., & Boutsen, L. (1995). A corpus of 714 full-color images of depth-rotated objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 925–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Monographs, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations