Surface but not volumetric part structure mediates three-dimensional shape representation: Evidence from part

Abstract

The decomposition of three-dimensional (3-D) objects into shape primitives consisting of geometric volumes is a key proposal of some theories of object recognition. It implicitly assumes that recognition involves volumetric completion—the derivation of a three-dimensional structure that comprises inferred shape properties, such as surfaces, that are not directly visible due to self-occlusion. The goal of this study was to test this claim. In Experiment 1 participants memorized novel objects and then discriminated these from previously unseen objects. Targets were preceded by primes containing a subset of object surfaces that either matched those visible in the whole objects or that could only be inferred through volumetric completion. The results showed performance benefits through priming from visible surfaces but not from inferred surfaces. In Experiment 2, we found equivalent priming for part-primes containing two visible surfaces from the same volumetric part and for primes containing one surface from each of two volumes. These results challenge the view that 3-D object recognition is mediated by shape primitives comprising geometric volumes. Instead, the results support an alternative model that proposes that 3-D shapes are represented as a non-volumetric surface-based structural description.

Keywords

Object recognition Shape representation Primitives Surfaces

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arguin

Saumier

(2004). Independent processing of parts and of their spatial organisation in complex visual objects. Psychological Science 15, 629–633.

Barr

A. H.

(1981). Superquadrics and angle-preserving transformations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 1, 1–11.

Bergevin

Levine

M. D.

(1993). Generic object recognition: Building and matching course descriptions from line drawings. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15, 19–63.

Bertamini

(2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception 30, 1295–1310.

Biederman

(1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image interpretation. Psychological Review 94, 115–147.

Biederman

Cooper

(1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology 23, 393–419.

Brooks

(1981). Symbolic reasoning among 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence 17, 285–349.

Bülthoff

H. H.

Edelman

(1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89, 60–64.

Edelman

(1999). Representation and recognition in vision London: MIT Press.

10.

Fan

T.-J.

Medioni

Nevatia

(1989). Recognizing 3-D objects using surface descriptions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11, 1140–1157.

11.

Faugeras

O. D.

New steps towards a flexible 3-D vision system for robotics

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. IEEE Computer Society Press

North Holland

1984 796–805.

12.

Guzman

Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies

AFIPS Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference. San Fransisco, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press

North Holland

1968 33 291–304.

13.

Hoffman

D. D.

Richards

W. A.

(1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition 18, 65–96.

14.

Hummel

J. E.

(2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition 8, 489–517.

15.

Hummel

J. E.

Biederman

(1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review 99, 480–517.

16.

Leek

E. C.

Reppa

Arguin

(2005). The structure of 3D object shape representations: Evidence from whole–part matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31, 668–684.

17.

Lowe

D. G.

(2003). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision 60, 91–110.

18.

Marr

Nishihara

H. K.

(1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B200, 269–294.

19.

Riesenhuber

Poggio

(1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience 2, 1019–1025.

20.

Vetter

Hurlbert

Poggio

(1995). View-based models of object recognition: Invariance to imaging transformations. Cerebral Cortex 3, 261–269.

21.

Winston

(1975). Learning structural descriptions from examples. Winston

The psychology of computer vision New York: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Zerroug

Nevatia

(1999). Part-based 3D descriptions of complex objects from a single image. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21, 835–848.

Surface but not volumetric part structure mediates three-dimensional shape representation: Evidence from part–whole priming

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References