Abstract
The dissociable neural subsystems theory proposes that left-hemisphere (LH) performance is dominated by a viewpoint-invariant (VI) recognition subsystem, whereas right-hemisphere (RH) performance is dominated by a viewpoint-dependent (VD) subsystem (Marsolek, 1999). Studies supporting this theory have used familiar objects and, therefore, may have been confounded by characteristics beyond perceptual features. Experiment 1, a lateralized sequential-matching task with novel objects, showed VD recognition in both hemispheres. In Experiment 2, some participants learned semantic associations for four novel objects, whereas others were exposed to the novel objects without the semantic associations. Both groups later performed a depth-rotated lateralized sequential-matching task. The participants who had learned semantic associations showed greater VD performance in the RH than in the LH; however, the participants in the control group showed equivalent VD performance in both hemispheres. The results suggest that hemispheric differences in VD performance may be partially attributable to an LH advantage for semantic processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885–2899.
Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991a). Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming. Perception, 20, 585–593.
Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991b). Object recognition and laterality: Null effects. Neuropsychologia, 29, 695–702.
Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size invariance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 121–133.
Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1162–1182.
Bookheimer, S. (2002). Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 151–188.
Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain & Cognition, 35, 239–258.
Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 480–489.
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition: II. An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1–47.
Carpenter, R. H. S. (1981). Oculomotor procrastination. In D. F. Fisher, R. A. Monty, & J. W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, E. E., Biederman, I., & Hummel, J. E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191–214.
Corballis, M. C., Zbrodoff, N. J., Shetzer, L. I., & Butler, P. B. (1984). Decisions about identity and orientation of rotated letters and digits. Memory & Cognition, 6, 98–107.
Davidoff, J., & Warrington, E. K. (1999). Apperceptive agnosia: A deficit of perceptual categorisation of objects. In G. W. Humphreys (Ed.), Case studies in the neuropsychology of vision (pp. 59–79). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Demb, J. B., Desmond, J. E., Wagner, A. D., Vaidya, C. J., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1995). Semantic encoding and retrieval in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: A functional MRI study of task difficulty and process specificity. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 5870–5878.
Farah, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain-specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164–169.
Funnell, M. G., Corballis, P. M., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1999). A deficit in perceptual matching in the left hemisphere of a callosotomy patient. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1143–1154.
Gauthier, I., James, T., Curby, K. M., & Tarr, M. J. (2003). The influence of conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 507–523.
Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 427–440.
Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1511–1521.
Hayward, W. G., & Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7–12.
Hellige, J. B. (2001). Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49–79.
James, T. W., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Brain areas engaged during visual judgments by involuntary access to novel semantic information. Vision Research, 44, 429–439.
Kann, J. (1950). A translation of Broca’s original article on the location of the speech center [Remarques sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulè, suivies d’une observation d’aphémie]. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 15, 16–20. (Original work published 1861)
Marsolek, C. J. (1995). Abstract visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 375–386.
Marsolek, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition. Psychological Science, 10, 111–118.
Marsolek, C. J., Kosslyn, S. M., & Squire, L. R. (1992). Form-specific visual priming in the right hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 492–508.
Marsolek, C. J., Schacter, D. L., & Nicholas, C. D..(1996). Formspecif ic visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere. Memory & Cognition, 24, 539–556.
Marsolek, C. J., Squire, L. R., Kosslyn, S. M., & Lulenski, M. E. (1994). Form-specific explicit and implicit memory in the right cerebral hemisphere. Neuropsychology, 8, 588–597.
Ojemann, G. A. (1983). Brain organization for language from the perspective of electrical stimulation mapping. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6, 189–230.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263–266.
Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.
Srinivas, K. (1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1019–1036.
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? Comments on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494–1505.
Tarr, M. J., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class? Cognition, 67, 73–110.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientationdependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233–282.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.
Tarr, M. J., Williams, P., Hayward, W. G., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275–277.
Vandenberghe, R., Price, C., Wise, R., Josephs, O., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1996). Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature, 383, 254–256.
Vuilleumier, P., Henson, R. N., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 491–499.
Wagner, A. D., Desmond, J. E., Demb, J. B., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1997). Semantic repetition priming for verbal and pictorial knowledge: A functional MRI study of left inferior prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 714–726.
Warrington, E. K., & James, M. (1991). A new test of object decision: 2D silhouettes featuring a minimal view. Cortex, 27, 377–383.
Warrington, E. K., & Taylor, A. M. (1978). Two categorical stages of object recognition. Perception, 7, 695–705.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by Grant CUHK4332/00H from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR to W.G.H. and by NSF Grant 0091752 to I.G.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Curby, K.M., Hayward, W.G. & Gauthier, I. Laterality effects in the recognition of depth-rotated novel objects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 4, 100–111 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.1.100
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.1.100