This study contrasted the role of surfaces and volumetric shape primitives in three-dimensional object recognition. Observers (N = 50) matched subsets of closed contour fragments, surfaces, or volumetric parts to whole novel objects during a whole–part matching task. Three factors were further manipulated: part viewpoint (either same or different between component parts and whole objects), surface occlusion (comparison parts contained either visible surfaces only, or a surface that was fully or partially occluded in the whole object), and target–distractor similarity. Similarity was varied in terms of systematic variation in nonaccidental (NAP) or metric (MP) properties of individual parts. Analysis of sensitivity (d′) showed a whole–part matching advantage for surface-based parts and volumes over closed contour fragments—but no benefit for volumetric parts over surfaces. We also found a performance cost in matching volumetric parts to wholes when the volumes showed surfaces that were occluded in the whole object. The same pattern was found for both same and different viewpoints, and regardless of target–distractor similarity. These findings challenge models in which recognition is mediated by volumetric part-based shape representations. Instead, we argue that the results are consistent with a surface-based model of high-level shape representation for recognition.
AmirO., BiedermanI., & HayworthK. J. (2012). Sensitivity to non-accidental properties across various shape dimensions. Vision Research, 62, 35–43.
2.
ArguinM., & LeekE. C. (2003). Viewpoint invariance in visual object priming depends on prime-target asynchrony. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 469–477.
3.
AshbrookA. P., FisherR. B., RobertsonC., & WerghiN. (1998). Finding surface correspondence for object recognition and registration using pairwise geometric histograms. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Vision, 2, 674–680.
4.
AttneaveF. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183–193.
5.
BarrA. H. (1981). Super-quadrics and angle-preserving transformations. IEEE Computer Grapics and Applications, 1, 1–11.
6.
BergevinR., & LevineM. D. (1993). Generic object recognition: Building and matching course descriptions from line drawings. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15, 19–36.
7.
BiedermanI. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
BiedermanI., & CooperE. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393–419.
10.
BiedermanI., & GerhardsteinP. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1162–1182.
11.
BrooksR. (1981). Symbolic reasoning among 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 285–349.
12.
BrophyJ. (1986). Where are the data? A reply to Confrey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 361–368.
13.
CateD., & BehrmannM. (2010). Perceiving parts and shapes from concave surfaces. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 72, 153–167.
14.
ChainayH., & HumphreysG. W. (2001). The real object advantage in agnosia: Evidence for a role of surface and depth information in object recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 175–191.
15.
CristinoF., ConlanL., PattersonL. C., & LeekE. C. (2012, April 17–19). The appearance of shape in visual perception: Eye movement patterns during recognition and reaching. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Appearance, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 125–127.
16.
CristinoF., DavittL., HaywardW., & LeekE. C. (in press). Stereo disparity facilitates view generalisation during shape recognition for solid multi-part objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
17.
DavittL., CristinoF., WongA., & LeekE. C. (2014). Fixation preference for concave surface discontinuities during object recognition generalises across levels of stimulus classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 40, 451–456.
18.
EdelmanS. (1999). Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
FanT-J., MedioniG., & NevatiaR. (1989). Recognizing 3-D objects using surface descriptions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11, 1140–1157.
20.
FaugerasO. D. (1984). New steps towards a flexible 3-D vision system for robotics. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 796–805.
21.
FazlA., GrossbergS., & MingollaE. (2009). View-invariant object category learning, recognition and search: How spatial and object attention are coordinated using surface-based attentional shrouds. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 1–48.
22.
FiserJ., & BiedermanI. (1995). Size invariance in visual object priming of grey-scale images. Perception, 24, 741–748.
23.
FisherR. (1989). From surfaces to objects: Computer vision and three dimensional scene analysis. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
24.
FosterD. H., & GilsonS. J. (2002). Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 269, 1939–1947.
25.
GuzmanA. (1968). Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies. AFIPS Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, 33, 291–304.
26.
HarrisI., DuxP. E., BenitoC. T., & LeekE. C. (2008). Orientation sensitivity at different stages of object processing: Evidence from repetition priming and naming. PLoS ONE, 3(5), e2256. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002256
27.
HummelJ. E. (2013). Object recognition. In ReisburgD. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
HummelJ. E., & BiedermanI. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480–517.
29.
HummelJ. E., & StankiewiczB. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In InuiT. & McCellandJ. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: On information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
KrivicJ., & SolinaF. (2004). Part-level object recognition using superquadrics. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 95, 105–126.
31.
LeeY.-L., & ParkR.-H. (2002). A surface-based approach to 3-D object recognition using a mean field annealing neural network. Pattern Recognition, 35, 299–316.
32.
LeekE. C. (1998a). The analysis of viewpoint-dependent time costs in visual recognition.Perception, 27, 803–816.
33.
LeekE. C. (1998b). Effects of stimulus viewpoint on the identification of common polyoriented objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 650–658.
34.
LeekE. C., AthertonC. J., & ThierryG. (2007). Computational mechanisms of object constancy for visual recognition revealed by event-related potentials. Vision Research, 47, 706–713.
35.
LeekE. C., CristinoF., ConlanL. I., PattersonC., RodriguezE., & JohnstonS. J. (2012). Eye movement patterns during the recognition of three-dimensional objects: Preferential fixation of concave surface curvature minima. Journal of Vision, 12(1), 1–15.
36.
LeekE. C., DavittL., & CristinoF. (2015). Implicit encoding of extrinsic object properties in stored representations mediating recognition: Evidence from shadow-specific repetition priming. Vision Research, 108, 49–55.
37.
LeekE. C., & JohnstonS. J. (2006). A polarity effect in misoriented object recognition: The role of polar features in the computation of orientation-invariant shape representations. Visual Cognition, 13, 573–600.
38.
LeekE. C., ReppaI., & ArguinM. (2005). The structure of 3D object shape representations: Evidence from part-whole matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 668–684.
39.
LeekE. C., ReppaI., RodiguezE., & ArguinM. (2009). Surface but not volumetric part structure mediates three-dimensional shape representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 814–829.
40.
LeekE. C.ReppaI., & TipperS. (2003). Inhibition-of-return for objects and locations in static displays. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 388–395.
41.
LoweD. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60, 91–110.
42.
MarrD., & NishiharaH. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 200, 269–294.
43.
NakayamaK., HeZ., & ShimojoS. (1995). Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. In KosslynS. M. & OshersonD. (Eds.), Visual cognition: Vol 2. An invitation to cognitive science (2nd ed., pp. 1–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NormanJ. F., SwindleJ. M., JenningsL. R., MullinsE. M., & BeersA. M. (2009). Stereoscopic shape discrimination is well preserved across changes in object size. Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 129–135.
46.
NormanJ. F., & ToddJ. T. (1996). The discriminability of local surface structure. Perception, 25(4), 381–398.
47.
NormanJ. F., ToddJ. T., NormanH. F., ClaytonA. M., & McBrideT. R. (2006). Visual discrimination of local surface structure: Slant, tilt, and curvedness. Vision Research, 46(6), 1057–1069.
48.
NormanJ. F., ToddJ. T., & PhillipsF. (1995). The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(5), 629–636.
49.
PentlandA. P. (1986). Perceptual organization and the representation of natural form. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 293–331.
50.
PhillipsF., ToddJ. T., KoenderinkJ. J., & KappersA. M. L. (2003). Perceptual representation of visible surfaces. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 747–762.
51.
PizloZ. (2008). 3D Shape: Its unique place in visual perception. London: MIT Press.
52.
PizloZ., SawadaT., LiY., KropatchW. G., & SteinmanR. M. (2010). New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume. Vision Research, 50, 1–11.
53.
PoggioT., & EdelmanS. (1990). A network that learns to recognise three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263–266.
54.
ReppaI., & LeekE. C. (2003). The modulation of inhibition-of-return across object-internal structure: Implications for theories of object-based attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 493–50.
55.
ReppaI., & LeekE. C. (2006). Structure-based modulation of IOR is triggered by object internal but not occluding shape features. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1857–1866.
56.
ReppaI., SchmidtW., & LeekE. C. (2012). Successes and failures in obtaining attentional object-based cueing effects. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(1), 43–69.
57.
RiesenhuberM., & PoggioT. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025.
58.
SawadaT., LiY., & PizloZ. (2011). Symmetry, shape, surfaces and objects. In TylerC. W. (Ed.), Computer Vision from Surfaces to Objects (pp. 113–124). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall/CRC.
59.
TarrM. J., & BülthoffH. H. (1998). Object recognition in man, monkey, and machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
UllmanS. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition based on the combination of views. In TarrM. J. & BülthoffH. H. (Eds.), Object recognition in man, monkey and machine (pp. 21–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
UllmanS. (2006). Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 58–64.
62.
UllmanS., Vidal-NaquetM., & SaliE. (2002). Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 682–687.
63.
ZerrougM., & NevatiaR. (1999). Part-based 3D descriptions of complex objects from a single image. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21, 835–848.
