Measurements were made of the way human subjects visually inspected an idealized machined tool part (a ‘widget’) while learning the three-dimensional shape of the object. Subjects were free to rotate the object about any axis. Inspection was not evenly distributed across all views. Subjects focused on views where the faces of the object were orthogonal to the line of sight and the edges of the object were aligned parallel or at right angles to the gravitational axis. These ‘face’ or ‘plan’ views were also the easiest for subjects to bring to mind in a mental imagery task. By contrast, when subjects were instructed to imagine the views displaying the most structural information they visualized views lying midway between face views.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanI, 1985“Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
2.
BruceVValentineTBaddelyA, 1987“The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition”Applied Cognitive Psychology1109–120
3.
CallahanJWeissR, 1985“A model for describing surface shape”Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (New York: IEEE Computer Society) pp 240–245
4.
ChakravartyIFreemanH, 1982“The use of characteristic views as a basis for recognition of three dimensional objects”SPIE, Robot Vision33637–45
5.
GrayM, 1986“Recognition planning from solid models”Proceedings of the Alvey Computer Vision and Image Interpretation Meeting, Bristol, September 1986 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press) pp 41–43
6.
HarriesM HPerrettD ILavenderA, 1991“Preferential inspection of views of 3-D model heads”Perception20669–680
7.
HintonDParsonsL M, 1988“Scene-based and viewer-centred representations for comparing shapes”Cognition301–35
8.
HumphreyG KJolicoeurP, 1988“Visual object identification: Some effects of image fore-shortening and monocular depth cues” in Computational Processes in Human Vision: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Ed. PylyshynZ (Norwood, NJ: Ablex) pp 430–440
9.
HumphreysG WRiddochM J, 1984“Routes to object constancy: Implications from neurological impairments of object constancy”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology36A385–415
10.
IkeuchiK, 1987“Precompiling a geometrical model into an interpretation tree for object recognition in a bin-picking task”Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence pp 321–339
11.
JolicoeurP, 1985“The time to name disoriented natural objects”Memory and Cognition13289–303
12.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1976“The singularities of the visual mapping”Biological Cybernetics2451–59
13.
KoenderinkJ Jvan DoornA J, 1979“The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision”Biological Cybernetics32211–216
14.
LangdonP M, 1991Perceived Similarity Judgements Between Multiple Views of 3D Objects and ‘Characteristic View’ Theories of RecognitionPhD thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
15.
LangdonP MMayhewJ E WFrisbyJ P, 1991“In search of ‘characteristic view’ 3D object representations in human vision using ratings of perceived differences between views” in 3D Model Recognition from Stereoscopic Cues Eds MayhewJ E WFrisbyJ P (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 243–248
16.
LavenderA, 1988Characteristic Views and Visual Inspection with Respect to Lighting DifferencesBSc thesis, Department of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews
17.
LoweD, 1985Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers)
18.
LoweD, 1987“Three dimensional object recognition from single two-dimensional images”Artificial Intelligence31355–395
19.
MarrD, 1981Vision (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman)
20.
MarrDNishiharaH K, 1978“Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of 3-dimensional shapes”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B200269–294
21.
PalmerSRoschEChaseP, 1981“Canonical perspective and the perception of objects” in Attention and PerformanceVolume IX Eds LongJBaddeleyA (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) pp 135–151
22.
ParsonsL M, 1987“Visual discrimination of abstract mirror-reflected three-dimensional objects at many orientations”Perception & Psychophysics4249–59
23.
PerrettD IHarriesM H, 1989“Characteristic views and the visual inspection of simple faceted and smooth objects: ‘tetrahedra and potatoes’”Perception17703–720
24.
PerrettD IHarriesM HBensonP JChittyA JMistlinA J, 1990“Retrieval of structure from rigid and biological motion; an analysis of the visual response of neurons in the macaque temporal cortex” in AI and the Eye Eds TrosciankoTBlakeA (Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley) pp 181–201
25.
PerrettD IOramM WHarriesM HBevanRHietanenJ KBensonP JThomasS, 1991“Viewer-centred and object-centred encoding of heads by cells in the superior temporal sulcus of the rhesus monkey”Experimental Briain Research86159–173
26.
PerrettD ISmithP A JPotterD DMistlinA JHeadA SMilnerA DJeevesM A, 1985“Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B223293–317
27.
PoggioTEdelmanS, 1990“A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects”Nature (London)343263–266
28.
ReigerJ H, 1986“Families of views of piecewise smooth objects” in Proceedings of the Alvey Computer Vision and Image Interpretation Meeting, Bristol, September 1986 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press) pp 44–47
29.
RockI, 1973Orientation and Forms (New York: Academic Press)
30.
RockIdi VitaJ, 1987“A case of viewer-centred object perception”Cognitive Psychology19280–293
31.
SeibertMWaxmanA M, 1990“Learning aspect graph representations from view sequences” in Advances in Neural Network Information Processing SystemsVolume 2 Ed. TouretzkyD S (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman) pp 258–265
32.
SnedecorG WCochranW G, 1980Statistical Methodsseventh edition (Ames, I A: Iowa State University Press)
33.
ThomasSPerrettD IDavisD NHarriesM H, 1991“Effect of perspective view on recognition of faces”unpublished manuscript
34.
ThorpeCShaferS, 1983“Correspondence in line drawings of multiple views of objects” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence2959–965
35.
UllmanS, 1989“Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition”Cognition32193–254
36.
WarringtonE KJamesM, 1986“Visual object recognition in patients with right hemisphere lesions: Axes or features?”Perception15355–366
37.
WarringtonE KTaylorA M, 1973“The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition”Cortex9152–164
