Abstract
Pigeons and humans were trained to discriminate between pictures of three-dimensional objects that differed in global shape. Each pair of objects was shown at two orientations that differed by a depth rotation of 90° during training. Pictures of the objects at novel depth rotations were then tested for recognition. The novel test rotations were 30°, 45°, and 90° from the nearest trained orientation and were either interpolated between the trained orientations or extrapolated outside of the training range. For both pigeons and humans, recognition accuracy and/or speed decreased as a function of distance from the nearest trained orientation. However, humans, but not pigeons, were more accurate in recognizing novel interpolated views than novel extrapolated views. The results suggest that pigeons’ recognition was based on independent generalization from each training view, whereas humans showed view-combination processes that resulted in a benefit for novel views interpolated between the training views.
Article PDF
References
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.
Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1506–1514.
Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.
Cook, R. G., &Katz, J. S. (1999). Dynamic object perception by pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 194–210.
Edelman, S. (1999).Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Edelman, S., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects.Vision Research,32, 2385–2400.
Humphrey, G. K., &Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 170–190.
Jolicoeur, P., &Humphrey, G. K. (1998). Perception of rotated twodimensional and three-dimensional objects and visual shapes. In V. Walsh & J. Kulikowski (Eds.),Visual constancies: Why things look as they do (pp. 69–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Bülthoff, H. H., &Poggio, T. (1994). View-dependent object recognition by monkeys.Current Biology,4, 401–414.
Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., &Biederman, I. (2000). Seeing things from a different angle: The pigeon’s recognition of single geons rotated in depth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,26, 115–132.
Perrett, D. I., Oram, M.W., &Ashbridge, E. (1998). Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: An account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations.Cognition,67, 111–145.
Poggio, T., &Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects.Nature,343, 263–266.
Spetch, M. L., Friedman, A., &Reid, S. (2001). The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons and humans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 218–225.
Spetch, M. L., Kelly, D.M., &Reid, S. (1999). Recognition of objects and spatial relations in pictures across changes in viewpoint.Current Psychology of Cognition,19, 729–764.
Srinivas, K., &Schwoebel, J. (1998). Generalization to novel views from view combination.Memory & Cognition,26, 768–779.
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.
Tarr, M. J., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1494–1505.
Tarr, M. J., Bülthoff, H.H., Zabinski, M., &Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint?Psychological Science,8, 282–289.
Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientationdependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Science,21, 233–282.
Ullman, S., &Basri, R. (1991). Recognition by linear combinations of models.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,13, 992–1005.
Wasserman, E. A., Gagliardi, J. L., Cook, B. R., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Astley, S.L., &Biederman, I. (1996). The pigeon’s recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 205–221.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by research grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spetch, M.L., Friedman, A. Recognizing rotated views of objects: Interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 135–140 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196477
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196477