The Structure of Three-Dimensional Object Representations in Human Vision: Evidence From Whole-Part Matching.

Leek, E. Charles; Reppa, Irene; Arguin, Martin

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.668

Cited by 26 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, in a later study, Reppa and Leek (2006) confirmed that the SBM effect is only triggered by object-internal structural discontinuities, not by discontinuities that are part of an occluding object. Combined, the evidence from healthy adults and PD patients suggests that IOR effects can arise from internally structured representations of objects (Leek, Reppa, & Arguin, 2005), as opposed merely to global forms.…”

Section: Ior Effects Are Influenced By Object Presencementioning

confidence: 99%

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

Reppa

Schmidt

Leek

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 30 years of research using Posner's spatial cueing paradigm has shown that selective attention operates on representations of spatial locations, leading to space-based theories of attention. Manipulations of stimuli and methods have shown this paradigm to be sensitive to several types of object-based representations-providing evidence for theories incorporating object-based attentional selection. This paper critically evaluates the evidence demanding object-based explanations that go beyond positing spatial representations alone, with an emphasis on identifying and interpreting successes and failures in obtaining object-based cueing effects. This overview of current evidence is used to generate hypotheses regarding critical factors in the emergence and influence of object representations-their generation, strength, and maintenance-in the modulation of objectbased facilitatory and inhibitory cueing effects.Keywords Selective attention . Object-based . Spacebased . Facilitation . IOR Many different experimental paradigms have been used to investigate the role of objects in visual selection (see Bichot, 1999, andScholl, 2001, for reviews). Through converging operations, strong evidence has emerged revealing that object-based representations can mediate attentional selection. Examples of such paradigms include studies of the attentional blink within and between objects (e. Mari-Beffa, Houghton, Estevez, & Fuentes, 2000;Tipper, Brehaut, & Driver, 1990), visual marking (e.g., Watson & Humphreys, 1998, visual search in multiple-object displays (e.g., Enns & Rensink, 1990;Goldsmith, 1998;Grossberg, Mingolla, & Ross, 1994;Rensink & Enns, 1995;Treisman, 1982;Wolfe & Bennett, 1997), and spatial cueing (e.g., Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994;Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991). In each of these literatures, positing that attention operates on representations of objects has provided more thorough and satisfying explanations of data than would simply assuming that attention operates on spatial representations alone. The present review concentrates on evidence for claims of object-based selection from studies using the spatial cueing paradigm. Why spatial cueing?A key motivation for focusing on spatial cueing is that claims have emerged that object-based spatial cueing We gratefully acknowledge Janice J. Snyder for inspiring a comprehensive table-based approach to integrating research findings. This paper benefited greatly from the review process and we thank the editor and the reviewers for their contribution.

show abstract

Section: Ior Effects Are Influenced By Object Presencementioning

confidence: 99%

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

Reppa

Schmidt

Leek

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, we investigate evidence for another kind of primitive derived from edgebased approximations of object surface shape (Leek et al, 2005;. There are several reasons why surfaces may be expected to play a key role in visual perception (e.g., Norman & Todd, 1996;Norman, Todd, & Phillips, 1995;J.F.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, surfaces are important in constraining actions (digit placement) during prehensile movement (e.g., Servos, Goodale, & Jacobson, 1992), and have been shown to influence the distribution of object-based attention (Leek, Reppa & Tipper, 2003;Nakayama, He, & Shimojo, 1995;Nakayama & Shimojo, 1992;Reppa, Schmidt & Leek, 2012;2006). Surfaces are also important for the binding of object shape and other attributes such as colour, texture and shadow (Cate & Behrmann;Chainay, & Humphreys, 2001;Fan, Medioni, & Nevatia, 1989;Faugeras, 1984;Fisher, 1989;Leek et al, 2005;Marr & Nishihara, 1978). Therefore, surface information can be important in constraining attention and action.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Surface-Based Representations of Shape in Visual Object Recognition

Reppa

Greville

Leek

2015

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Stereo viewing enhances specific kinds of shape information about local surface depth orientation and curvature minima arising at part boundaries (Norman et al, 1995;Welchman et al, 2005;Wismeijer et al, 2010). We predicted that under structural description approaches which assume high-level part segmentation the availability of this information under conditions of stereo viewing should facilitate recognition and view generalisation (e.g., Biederman 1987;Hoffman & Richards, 1984;Hummel & Stankiewicz, 1996;Marr & Nishihara, 1978;Leek et al, 2005;Leek et al, 2009). In contrast, according to image-based models such as HMAX (Reisenhuber & Poggio, 1999;Serre et al, 2007) recognition across views is achieved via interpolation among stored 2D aspects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cristino

Davitt

Hayward

et al. 2015

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Structure of Three-Dimensional Object Representations in Human Vision: Evidence From Whole-Part Matching.

Cited by 26 publications

References 83 publications

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects

The Role of Surface-Based Representations of Shape in Visual Object Recognition

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About