English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Is Human Object Recognition Better Described by Geon Structural Descriptions or by Multiple Views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993)

Tarr, M., & Bülthoff, H. (1995). Is Human Object Recognition Better Described by Geon Structural Descriptions or by Multiple Views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(6), 1494-1505. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.6.1494.

Item is

Basic

show hide
Item Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-EC42-2 Version Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0005-F0F7-5
Genre: Journal Article

Files

show Files

Locators

show
hide
Description:
-

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Tarr, MJ, Author              
Bülthoff, HH1, 2, Author              
Affiliations:
1Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_1497794              
2Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society, ou_1497797              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: Is human object recognition viewpoint dependent or viewpoint invariant under “everyday” conditions? I. Biederman and P.C. Gerhardstein (1993) argued that viewpoint-invariant mechanisms are used almost exclusively. However, our analysis indicates that (a) their conditions for immediate viewpoint invariance lack the generality to characterize a wide range of recognition phenomena, (b) the extensive body of viewpoint-dependent results cannot be dismissed as processing “by-products” or “experimental artifacts,” and (c) geon structural descriptions cannot coherently account for category recognition, the domain they are intended to explain. The weight of current evidence supports an exemplar-based multiple-views mechanism as an important component of both exemplar-specific and categorical recognition. *1 This research was supported by U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research Contract F49620-91-J-0169 and by the U.S. Office of Naval Research Contract N00014-93-1-0305. Many of the ideas presented in this article were developed during visits by Michael J. Tarr to the Max-Planck-Institut für Biologische Kybernetik, Tübingen, Germany.*2 This article is based on a more detailed version available as Max-Planck Technical Report No. 3, which may be obtained via anonymous ftp to ftp.mpik-tueb.mpg.de as pub/mpi-memos/tr-003.ps.z.*3 We thank Dan Kersten for his insightful comments and thoughtful advice, Shimon Edelman, David Kriegman, Emanuela Bricolo, William Hayward, Laurie Heller, Pepper Williams, and Alice O'Toole for their comments. We also thank William Hayward for initiating the idea expressed in Figure 3 as well as Pierre Jolicoeur for helpful comments.Corresponding Author Contact Information

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 1995-12
 Publication Status: Published in print
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.6.1494
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: Washington : American Psychological Association (PsycARTICLES)
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 21 (6) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 1494 - 1505 Identifier: ISSN: 0096-1523
CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/954927546243