How humans recognize objects remains a contentious issue in current research on high-level vision. Here, I test the proposal by Wallis and Bülthoff (1999 Trends in Cognitive Sciences3 22–31) suggesting that object representations can be learned through temporal association of multiple views of the same object. Participants first studied image sequences of novel, three-dimensional objects in a study block. On each trial, the images were from either an orderly sequence of depth-rotated views of the same object (SS), a scrambled sequence of those views (SR), or a sequence of different objects (RR). Recognition memory was assessed in a following test block. A within-object advantage was consistently observed—greater accuracy in the SR than the RR condition in all four experiments, greater accuracy in the SS than the RR condition in two experiments. Furthermore, spatiotemporal coherence did not produce better recognition than temporal coherence alone (similar or less accuracy in the SS compared to the SR condition). These results suggest that the visual system can use temporal regularity to build invariant object representations, via the temporal-association mechanism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiedermanI, 1985“Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory”Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing3229–73
2.
BiedermanIBarM, 1999“One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects”Vision Research392885–2899
3.
BiedermanIGerhardsteinP C, 1993“Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for 3-dimensional viewpoint invariance”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance191162–1182
4.
BülthoffHEdelmanS, 1992“Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA8960–64
5.
EdelmanSWeinshallD, 1991“A self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3D objects”Biological Cybernetics64209–219
6.
FöldiakP, 1991“Learning invariance from transformation sequences”Neural Computation3194–200
7.
HarmanK LHumphreyG K, 1999“Encoding ‘regular’ and ‘random’ sequences of views of novel three-dimensional objects”Perception28601–615
8.
HaywardW GTarrM J, 1997“Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance231511–1521
9.
HummelJ EBiedermanI, 1992“Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition”Psychological Review99480–517
10.
HumphreyG KKhanS C, 1992“Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects”Canadian Journal of Psychology46170–190
11.
JohanssonG, 1973“Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis”Perception & Psychophysics14201–211
12.
KnappmeyerBThorntonI MBülthoffH, 2003“The use of facial motion and facial form during the processing of identity”Vision Research431921–1936
13.
LawsonRHumphreysG WWatsonD G, 1994“Object recognition under sequential viewing conditions: evidence for viewpoint-specific recognition procedures”Perception23595–614
14.
LiuTCooperL A, 2003“Explicit and implicit memory for rotating objects”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition20554–562
15.
MacmillanN ACreelmanC D, 2005Detection Theory: A User's Guide (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
16.
MiyashitaY, 1988“Neuronal correlate of visual associative long-term memory in the primate temporal cortex”Nature335817–820
17.
NewellF NWallravenCHuberS, 2004“The role of characteristic motion in object categorization”Journal of Vision4118–129
18.
NewellF NFindlayJ M, 1997“The effect of depth rotation on object identification”Perception261231–1257
19.
PachellaR G, 1974“The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research”, in Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition Ed. KantowitzB (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 41–82
PittsMMcCullochW S, 1947“How we know universals: the perception of auditory and visual forms”Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics9127–147
22.
RockIGutmanD, 1981“The effect of inattention on form perception”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7275–285
23.
RoschEMervisC BGrayW DJohnsonD MBoyes-BraemP, 1976“Basic objects in natural categories”Cognitive Psychology8382–439
24.
StoneJ V, 1998“Object recognition using spatiotemporal signatures”Vision Research38947–951
25.
StoneJ V, 1999“Object recognition: view-specificity and motion-specificity”Vision Research394032–4044
26.
TarrM 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 & Review255–82
27.
TarrM JBülthoffH, 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 and Performance211494–1505
28.
ThorntonI MKourtziZ, 2002“A matching advantage for dynamic human faces”Perception31113–132
29.
VuongQ CTarrM J, 2004“Rotation direction affects object recognition”Vision Research441717–1730
30.
VuongQ CTarrM J, 2006“Structural similarity and spatiotemporal noise effects on learning dynamic novel objects”Perception35497–510
31.
WallisG, 2002“The role of object motion in forging long-term representations of objects”Visual Cognition9233–247
32.
WallisGBülthoffH, 1999“Learning to recognize objects”Trends in Cognitive Sciences322–31
33.
WallisGBülthoffH, 2001“Effects of temporal association on recognition memory”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA984800–4804
34.
WallisGRollsE T, 1997“Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system”Progress in Neurobiology51167–194
