Abstract
Given a specific view of a simple symmetrical object, participants were asked whether a certain imaginary transformation could result in a second viewed image. An experiment was conducted in which the participants had either to mentally rotate an object or to imagine themselves looking at the object from another position (i.e., the object-based condition and the viewer-based condition, respectively). In the experiment, combinations of these imagery tasks (i.e., the combined conditions) were also included. The symmetrical objects could be oriented horizontally or vertically. The performance in the object-based conditions was generally equal to or better than the performance in the viewer-based conditions. In addition, there were more confusions for shapes with a horizontal orientation, especially when viewer-based upside-down rotations were involved, with an apparent mediating role of object rotation in the combined conditions.
Article PDF
References
Amorim, M., &Stucchi, N. (1997). Viewer- and object-centered mental explorations of an imagined environment are not equivalent.Cognitive Brain Research,5, 229–239.
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.
Carpenter, M., &Proffitt, D. R. (2001). Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes.Memory & Cognition,29, 441–448.
Cooper, L. A. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes.Cognitive Psychology,7, 20–43.
Creem, S. H., Wraga, M., &Proffitt, D.R. (2001). Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: Geometry is more important than gravity.Cognition,81, 41–64.
Franklin, N., &Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 63–76.
Hinton, G. E., &Parsons, L. M. (1988). Scene-based and viewercentered representations for comparing shapes.Cognition,30, 1–35.
Huttenlocher, J., &Presson, C. C. (1979). The coding and transformation of spatial information.Cognitive Psychology,11, 375–394.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability.Psychological Review,92, 137–172.
Pani, J. R. (1993). Limits on the comprehension of rotational motion: Mental imagery of rotations with oblique components.Perception,22, 785–808.
Pani, J. R., William, C., &Shippey, G. T. (1995). Determinants of the perception of rotational motion: Orientation of the motion to the object and to the environment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1441–1456.
Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one’s body.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 172–191.
Parsons, L. M. (1995). Inability to reason about an object’s orientation using an axis and angle of rotation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1259–1277.
Presson, C. C. (1982). Strategies in spatial reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 243–251.
Rock, I., &DiVita, J. C. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception.Cognitive Psychology,19, 280–293.
Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.
Simons, D. J., &Wang, R. F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes.Psychological Science,9, 315–320.
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.
van Lier, R. J., &Wagemans, J. (1998). Effects of physical connectivity on the representational unity of multi-part configurations.Cognition,69, B1-B9.
van Lier, R. J., &Wagemans, J. (1999). From images to objects: Global and local completions of self-occluded parts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1721–1741.
Wang, R. F., &Simons, D. J. (1999). Active and passive scene recognition across views.Cognition,70, 191–210.
Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., &Proffitt, D. R. (1999). The influence of spatial reference frames on imagined object- and viewer rotations.Acta Psychologica,102, 247–264.
Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., &Proffitt, D. R. (2000). Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 151–168.
Yuille, J. C., &Steiger, J. H. (1982). Nonholistic processing in mental rotation: Some suggestive evidence.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 201–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Lier, R. Differential effects of object orientation on imaginary object /viewer transformations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 455–461 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196506
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196506