Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the viewpoint dependence of spatial memories In Experiment 1, participants learned the locations of objects on a desktop from a single perspective and then took part in a recognition test, test scenes included familiar and novel views of the layout Recognition latency was a linear function of the angular distance between a test view and the study view In Experiment 2, participants studied a layout from a single view and then learned to recognize the layout from three additional training views A final recognition test showed that the study view and the training views were represented in memory, and that latency was a linear function of the angular distance to the nearest study or training view These results indicate that interobject spatial relations are encoded in a viewpoint-dependent manner, and that recognition of novel views requires normalization to the most similar representation in memory These findings parallel recent results in visual object recognition.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biederman

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

Biederman

Gechardstein

P.C.

(1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162–1182.

Biederman

Gerhardstein

P.C.

(1995), Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1506–1514.

Bülthoff

H.H.

Edelmam

(1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 89, 60–61.

Bülthoff

H.H.

Edleman

S.Y.

Tarr

M.J.

(1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain?Cerebral Cortex, 5, 247–260.

Cohen

Kubovy

(1993). Mental rotation, mental representation, and flat slopes. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 351–382.

Cohen

J.D.

MacWhinnery

Flatt

Provost

(1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavior Research Methods: Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257–271.

Edelman

Weinshall

(1991). A Self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3D objects. Biological Cybernetics, 64, 209–219.

Jolicoeur

(1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303.

10.

Levine

Jankovie

I.N.

Palij

(1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 157–175.

11.

Logothetis

N.K.

Pauls

(1995). Psychophysical and physiological evidence for viewer centered object representations in the primate. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 270–288.

12.

Marr

(1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.

13.

Poggio

Girosi

(1990). Regularization algorithms for learning that are equivalent to multiplayer networks. Science, 247, 978–982.

14.

Presson

C.C.

DeLange

Hazelrigg

M.D.

(1989). Orientation specificity in spatial memory. What makes a path different form a map of the path. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 887–897.

15.

Rieser

J.J.

(1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1157–1165.

16.

Rock

DiVita

(1987). A case of viewer centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280–293.

17.

Shelton

A.L.

McNamara

T.P.

(1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic, Bulletin, & Review, 4, 102–106.

18.

Shepard

R.N.

Cooper

L.A.

(1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

19.

Srinivas

(1995). Representation of rotated objects in explicit and implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1019–1036.

20.

Tarr

M.J.

(1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A ease study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic, Bulletin, & Review, 2, 55–82.

21.

Tarr

M.J.

Bülihoff

H.H.

(1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural description orby multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494–1505.

22.

Tarr

M.J.

Pinker

(1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233–282.

23.

Ullman

(1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 32, 193–254.

24.

Velter

Poggio

Bülthoff

H.H.

(1994). The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional objects recognition. Current Biology, 4, 18–23.

Viewpoint Dependence in Scene Recognition

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References