Stereo Disparity Facilitates View Generalization during Shape Recognition for Solid Multipart Objects

Abstract

Current theories of object recognition in human vision make different predictions about whether the recognition of complex, multipart objects should be influenced by shape information about surface depth orientation and curvature derived from stereo disparity. We examined this issue in five experiments using a recognition memory paradigm in which observers (N = 134) memorized and then discriminated sets of 3D novel objects at trained and untrained viewpoints under either mono or stereo viewing conditions. In order to explore the conditions under which stereo-defined shape information contributes to object recognition we systematically varied the difficulty of view generalization by increasing the angular disparity between trained and untrained views. In one series of experiments, objects were presented from either previously trained views or untrained views rotated (15°, 30°, or 60°) along the same plane. In separate experiments we examined whether view generalization effects interacted with the vertical or horizontal plane of object rotation across 40° viewpoint changes. The results showed robust viewpoint-dependent performance costs: Observers were more efficient in recognizing learned objects from trained than from untrained views, and recognition was worse for extrapolated than for interpolated untrained views. We also found that performance was enhanced by stereo viewing but only at larger angular disparities between trained and untrained views. These findings show that object recognition is not based solely on 2D image information but that it can be facilitated by shape information derived from stereo disparity.

Stereo viewing modulates three-dimensional shape processing during object recognition: A high-density ERP study.

“…This observation adds to a growing body of behavioral evidence that stereo input can facilitate 3D object recognition—at least under some conditions (e.g., Bennett & Vuong, 2006 ; Burke, 2005 ; Burke et al, 2007 ; Chan et al, 2006 ; Edelman & Bülthoff, 1990 ; Hong Liu et al, 2006 ; Lee & Saunders, 2011 ; Rock & DiVita, 1987 ; Simons et al, 2002 ). According to Cristino et al (2015) , stereo input provides additional cues to 3D object shape including, for example, the specification of surface slant, curvature polarity and 3D part configuration. We also found differential modulation of ERP amplitudes during mono and stereo viewing as a function of target/nontarget shape similarity.…”

“…One important, and unresolved, issue is whether, and under what conditions, information derived from stereo (binocular) disparity influences the recognition of 3D object shape (e.g., Bennett & Vuong, 2006 ; Chan, Stevenson, Li, & Pizlo, 2006 ; Cristino, Davitt, Hayward, & Leek, 2015 ; Edelman & Bülthoff, 1990 ; Koenderink, van Doorn, & Kappers, 1992 ; Li, Pizlo, & Steinman, 2009 ; Norman, Todd, & Phillips, 1995 ; Pegna, Darque, Roberts, & Leek, 2016; Pizlo, Sawada, Li, Kropatsch, & Steinman, 2010 ; Welchman, Deubelius, Conrad, Bul̆thoff & Kourtzi, 2005 ). Some current theories attribute little, if any, significance to stereo information (e.g., Bülthoff & Edelman, 1992 ; Chan et al, 2006 ; Pizlo, 2008 ; Riesenhuber & Poggio, 1999 ; Serre, Oliva, & Poggio, 2007 ).…”

“…The results provide a mixed picture with stereo advantages reported in some studies (e.g., Bennett & Vuong, 2006 ; Burke, 2005 ; Burke, Taubert, & Higman, 2007 ; Chan et al, 2006 ; Edelman & Bülthoff, 1990 ; Hong Liu, Ward, & Young, 2006 ; Lee & Saunders, 2011 ; Rock & DiVita, 1987 ; Simons, Wang, & Roddenberry, 2002 ), but not in others ( Humphrey & Khan, 1992 ; Pasqualotto & Hayward, 2009 ). Recently, Cristino et al (2015) have proposed that stereo information is computed during the visual perception of object shape. It is more likely to be used to supplement shape information derived from mono-ocular cues when object recognition (i.e., target/nontarget discrimination or view generalization) is facilitated by the derivation of 3D object structure.…”

Effects of stereoscopic disparity on early ERP components during classification of three-dimensional objects

“…A limitation of these studies is their use of stimulus types that are 9 different from most common solid 3D objects and are not readily decomposable into a 10 structural description of volumetric parts. Cristino et al (2015) have recently shown - 11 in one of the few studies to use complex, multi-part, 3D objects -that stereo 12 presentation yields advantages in recognition when observers are required to make 13 difficult target-distracter discriminations. One interpretation of this finding is that 14 stereo cues may be used to constrain perceptual analyses of 3D object shape when 15 image classification requires the computation of 3D shape configuration.…”

“…Current empirical evidence on this issue is inconclusive and largely confined to studies investigating the perception of shape equivalence across changes in viewpoint (Bennett & Vuong, 2006; Burke, Taubert, & Higman, 2007; Chan, Stevenson, Li, & Pizlo, 2006; Cristino, Davitt, Hayward, & Leek, 2015; Edelman & Bulthoff, 1992; Humphrey & Khan, 1992; Lee & Saunders, 2011; Liu, Ward, & Young, 2006; Pasqualotto & Hayward, 2009; Rock & DiVita, 1987). Some studies – typically involving deformed ‘paperclips’ or ‘amoeba’ stimuli – have found stereo viewing advantages for image interpolation across viewpoint changes (e.g., Bennett & Vuong, 2006; Edelman & Bulthoff, 1992; Lee & Saunders, 2011), although stereo viewing costs have also been reported under some conditions (e.g., Pasqualotto & Hayward, 2009).…”