Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 650–658 | Cite as

Effects of stimulus orientation on the identification of common polyoriented objects

  • E. C. LeekEmail author
Brief Reports


Experimental evidence has shown that the time taken to recognize objects is often dependent on stimulus orientation in the image plane. This effect has been taken as evidence that recognition is mediated by orientation-specific stored representations of object shapes. However, the factors that determine the orientation specificity of these representations remain unclear. This issue is examined using a word-picture verification paradigm in which subjects identified line drawings of common mono- and polyoriented objects at different orientations. A detailed analysis of the results showed that, in contrast to mono-oriented objects, the recognition of polyoriented objects is not dependent on stimulus orientation. This interaction provides a further constraint on hypotheses about the factors that determine the apparent orientation specificity of stored shape representations. In particular, they support previous proposals that objects are encoded in stored representations at familiar stimulus orientations.


Mental Rotation Angular Distance Picture Naming Stimulus Orientation Oriented Object 
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. Arguin, M., &Leek, E. C. (1995).Mental rotation for visual object recognition: Identical rates in priming and picture naming. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Fort Lauderdale, FL.Google Scholar
  2. Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional view point invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a 2D view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes.Psychological Review,95, 115–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutzu, F., &Edelman, S. (1994). Canonical views in object representation and recognition.Vision Research,34, 22, 3037-3056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch, G., Bourbon, W. T., Papanicolaou, C., &Eisenberg, H. M. (1988). Visuospatial experiments compared via activation of regional cerebral blood flow.Neuropsychologia,26, 445–452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelman, S., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation-dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of 3D objects.Vision Research,32, 2385–2400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Georgopoulos, A. P., Lurito, J. T., Petrides, M., Schwartz, A. B., &Massey, J. T. (1989). Mental rotation of the neuronal population vector.Science,243, 234–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, J. J., &Robinson, D. (1935). Orientation in visual perception: The recognition of familiar plane forms in differing orientations.Psychological Monographs,46, 39–47.Google Scholar
  10. Gum, T. (1995).Psychlab v1.0: Macintosh applications program [Software program]. Montreal: Psychlab.Google Scholar
  11. Hamm, J. P., &McMullen, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1984). Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 385–415.Google Scholar
  13. Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects.Memory & Cognition,13, 289–303.Google Scholar
  14. Jolicoeur, P. (1990). On the role of mental rotation and feature extraction in the identification of disoriented objects: A dual systems theory.Mind & Language,5, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosslyn, S. M. (1973). Scanning visual images: Some structural implications.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kosslyn, S. M., &Alper, S. N. (1977). On the pictorial properties of visual images: Effects of image size on memory for words.Canadian Journal of Psychology,31, 32–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kosslyn, S. M., Alpert, N. M., Thompson, W. L., Chabris, C. F., Rauch, S. L., &Anderson, A. K. (1994). Identifying objects seen from different viewpoints. A PET investigation.Brain,117, 1055–1071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Leek, E. C. (1996).The representation of object orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  19. Maki, R. H. (1986). Naming and locating the tops of rotated pictures.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 368–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organisation of three-dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,207, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McMullen, P. A., &Farah, M. J. (1991). Viewer-centered and objectcentered representations in the recognition of naturalistic line drawings.Psychological Science,2, 275–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray, J. E., Jolicoeur, P., McMullen, P. A., &Ingleton, M. (1993). Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects.Memory & Cognition,21, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newell, F., &Findlay, J. M. (1992). Viewpoint invariance in object recognition.Irish Journal of Psychology,13, 494–507.Google Scholar
  24. Palmer, S. E. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Palmer, S. E., 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
  26. Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rosch, E. (1978). Principals of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Schwartz, S. P. (1981). The perception of disoriented complex objects. InProceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 181–183).Google Scholar
  29. Sutherland, N. S. (1968). Outlines of a theory of visual pattern recognition in animals and man.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,171, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Takano, Y. (1989). Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types.Cognitive Psychology,21, 1–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Tarr, M. J., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon-structural-descriptions or by multiple-views?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1494–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape processing.Cognitive Psychology,21, 233–282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?Psychological Science,1, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition.Cognition,32, 193–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagemans, J., Van Gool, L., &Lamote, C. (1996). The visual system’s measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant.Psychological Science,7, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiser, M. (1981). The role of intrinsic axes in shape recognition. InProceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 184–186).Google Scholar
  38. Zusne, L. (1970).Visual perception of form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WalesBangorWales

Personalised recommendations