Stereo disparity facilitates view generalization during shape recognition for solid multipart objects

REFERENCES

• Arguin, M., & Leek, E. C. (2003). Orientation invariance in visual object priming depends on prime-target asynchrony. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(3), 469–477. doi: 10.3758/BF03194576
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, D. J., & Vuong, Q. C. (2006). A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(7), 1082–1093. doi: 10.3758/BF03193711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 12–23. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115–117. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. L. (1986). Alternatives to a table of criterion values in signal detection theory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 285–286. doi: 10.3758/BF03204400
   Google Scholar
• Bülthoff, H. H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(1), 60–64. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.1.60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, D. (2005). Combining disparate views of objects: Viewpoint costs are reduced by stereopsis. Visual Cognition, 12(5), 705–719. doi:10.1080/13506280444000463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, D., Taubert, J., & Higman, T. (2007). Are face representations viewpoint dependent? A stereo advantage for generalising across different views of faces. Vision Research, 47(16), 2164–2169. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.04.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, M. W., Stevenson, A. K., Li, Y., & Pizlo, Z. (2006). Binocular shape constancy from novel views: the role of a priori constraints. Psychophysics, 68(7), 1124–1139. doi: 10.3758/BF03193715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, E. H., Barenholtz, E., Singh, M., & Feldman, J. (2005). What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. Journal of Vision, 5, 313–321. doi: 10.1167/5.4.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davitt, L., Cristino, F., Wong, A., & Leek, E. C. (2014). Fixation preference for concave surface discontinuities during object recognition generalises across levels of stimulus classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 451–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1990). Viewpoint-specific representation in three-dimensional object recognition. Retrieved from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.16.9627
   Google Scholar
• Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32(12), 2385–2400. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90102-O
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, D. H., & Gilson, S. J. (2002). Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269(1503), 1939–1947. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamm, J. P., & McMullen, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 413–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, I. M., Dux, P. E., Benito, C. T., & Leek, E. 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayward, W. G. (2003). After the viewpoint debate: where next in object recognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 425–427. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayward, W. G., & Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11(1), 7–12. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination. Journal of Vision, 4(12), 967–992. doi: 10.1167/4.12.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18(1–3), 65–96. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(84)90022-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong Liu, C., Ward, J., & Young, A. W. (2006). Transfer between two- and three-dimensional representations of faces. Visual Cognition, 13, 51–64. doi:10.1080/13506280500143391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel, J. E. (2013). Object recognition. In D. Reisburg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVI: On information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Humphrey, G. K., & Khan, S. C. (1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 46(2), 170–190. doi: 10.1037/h0084320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, R. A. (2002). What determines visual cue reliability? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 345–350. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01948-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knill, D. C., & Saunders, J. A. (2003). Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? Vision Research, 43(24), 2539–2558. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00458-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. L., & Saunders, J. A. (2011). Stereo improves 3D shape discrimination even when rich monocular shape cues are available. Journal of Vision, 11(9), article no. 6. doi:10.1167/11.9.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C. (1998a). Effects of stimulus orientation on the identification of common polyoriented objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 650–658. doi:10.3758/BF03208841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C. (1998b). The analysis of orientation-dependent time costs in visual recognition. Perception, 27(7), 803–816. doi: 10.1068/p270803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C., Atherton, C. J., & Thierry, G. (2007). Computational mechanisms of object constancy for visual recognition revealed by event-related potentials. Vision Research, 47(5), 706–713. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.10.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C., Cristino, F., Conlan, L. I., Patterson, C., Rodriguez, E., & Johnston, S. J. (2012). Eye movement patterns during the recognition of three-dimensional objects: preferential fixation of concave surface curvature minima. Journal of Vision, 12(1), 7. doi:10.1167/12.1.7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C., & Johnston, S. 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(5), 573–600. doi:10.1080/13506280544000048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C., Reppa, I., & Arguin, M. (2005). The structure of three-dimensional object representations in human vision: Evidence from whole-part matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 668–684. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.668
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, E. C., Reppa, I., Rodriguez, E., & Arguin, M. (2009). Surface but not volumetric part structure mediates three-dimensional shape representation: Evidence from part–whole priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 814–830. doi:10.1080/17470210802303826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., & Pizlo, Z. (2011). Depth cues versus the simplicity principle in 3D shape perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(4), 667–685. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01155.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Pizlo, Z., & Steinman, R. M. (2009). A computational model that recovers the 3D shape of an object from a single 2D retinal representation. Vision Research, 49(9), 979–991. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.05.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, I. S., & Leek, E. C. (2012). Curvature and the visual perception of shape: Theory on information along object boundaries and the minima rule revisited. Psychological Review, 119(3), 668–677. doi:10.1037/a0025962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 200(1140), 269–294. doi:10.1098/rspb.1978.0020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, J., Todd, J. T., & Phillips, F. (1995). The perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 629–636. doi:10.3758/BF03213268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, J. F., Swindle, J. M., Jennings, L. R., Mullins, E. M., & Beers, A. M. (2009). Stereoscopic shape discrimination is well preserved across changes in object size. Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasqualotto, A., & Hayward, W. G. (2009). A stereo disadvantage for recognizing rotated familiar objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 832–838. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizlo, Z. (2010). 3D Shape. Its unique place in visual perception. Literary and Linguistic Computing. doi:10.1093/llc/fqq025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2(11), 1019–1025. doi:10.1038/14819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rock, I., & DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 280–293. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90013-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serre, T., Oliva, A., & Poggio, T. (2007). A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 6424–6429. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700622104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 1(4), 253–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00209.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welchman, A. E., Deubelius, A., Conrad, V., Bülthoff, H. H., & Kourtzi, Z. (2005). 3D shape perception from combined depth cues in human visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 8(6), 820–827. doi:10.1038/nn1461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wismeijer, D. A., Erkelens, C. J., Ee, R. van, & Wexler, M. (2010). Depth cue combination in spontaneous eye movements. Journal of Vision, 10(6), 25. doi:10.1167/10.6.25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, A. C.-N., & Hayward, W. G. (2005). Constraints on view combination: Effects of self-occlusion and differences among familiar and novel views. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 110–121. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar