On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition

Abstract

A three-quarter view, i.e., an oblique view, of familiar objects often leads to a higher subjective goodness rating when compared with other orientations. What is the source of the high goodness for oblique views? First, we confirmed that object recognition performance was also best for oblique views around 30° view, even when the foreshortening disadvantage of front- and side-views was minimized (Experiments 1 and 2). In Experiment 3, we measured subjective ratings of view goodness and two possible determinants of view goodness: familiarity of view, and subjective impression of three-dimensionality. Three-dimensionality was measured as the subjective saliency of visual depth information. The oblique views were rated best, most familiar, and as approximating greatest three-dimensionality on average; however, the cluster analyses showed that the "best" orientation systematically varied among objects. We found three clusters of objects: front-preferred objects, oblique-preferred objects, and side-preferred objects. Interestingly, recognition performance and the three-dimensionality rating were higher for oblique views irrespective of the clusters. It appears that recognition efficiency is not the major source of the three-quarter view advantage. There are multiple determinants and variability among objects. This study suggests that the classical idea that a canonical view has a unique advantage in object perception requires further discussion.

Which Side Looks Better? Cultural Differences in Preference for Left- or Right-Facing Objects

“…Another direction is to examine the effect of short-term experience on the preferred facing direction. If familiarity is a major determinant of view goodness [3], repeated exposure to objects with a certain facing direction would increase the likelihood of choosing the angle that is consistent with the preceding views [57].…”

“…Niimi and Yokosawa [2] asked 10 Japanese participants to rate the view goodness of 18 common symmetrical objects rotated by 10 different angles from the straight front; they found that the three-quarter views, such as rotated by 27 • and 45 • , were rated better than other views. Nonose et al [3] further reported that although oblique views were generally rated better than the front and side views, different objects had different best viewing angles, and the objects could be classified into three clusters based on view goodness rating patterns across viewing angles: front-preferred, oblique-preferred, and side-preferred objects. Three-dimensionality ratings and recognition performance were the highest for oblique views for all clusters.…”

Visual-Spatial Skills, Strategies, and Challenges to Extract, Represent, and Predict Stereochemical Outcomes of Cycloadditions Using a Hexagonal Prism Reference Frame

“…30 All ball-and-stick models in this document were made using the Gaussian-2-Blender API 31 observer's point of view. 21 Nonose's statement suggests that the representations at 30°and 60°in Table 2 might communicate a larger number of depth cues than the representations at 0°and 90°.…”

“…Since the canonical axis of a hexagonal prism passes perpendicularly through its two hexagonal faces, by embedding the Diels−Alder TS in a hexagonal prism, the prism's axis is transferred to the TS (see Figure 2C). Moreover, studies suggest 23,24 degree of closeness between the object and the observer salient features 23,24 salient, distinguishable forms or shapes that observers can use to recognize the representation of an object canonical axis 34 axis from which it feels natural to rotate, translate, or elongate a shape depth cues 20,22,28 depth perception cues that depict 3D spatial characteristics in 2D representations (for example, relative size, angle distortions, foreshortening lines) oblique orientations 21 The impression of three-dimensionality is more easily recognized in oblique orientations. that canonical axes help observers to visualize 3D characteristics because from this axis, observers can project two perpendicular axes, creating an internal reference frame (see Figure 2D).…”

“…The SRF is the foundation for the external reference frame aforementioned and it integrates the concepts of depth cues and oblique object orientations with Lawson’s familiar shape framework − and Marr’s “canonical axis” for mental object manipulations. − Depth cues are the conventions used in 2D representations to convey 3D characteristics Table illustrates depth cues present in the Diels–Alder transition state between (2 × 10 –4 E)-hexa-2,4-diene and ethylene.…”