The Visual System's Measurement of Invariants Need Not Itself Be Invariant

Abstract

When two shapes that differ in orientation or size have to be compared or objects have to be recognized from different viewpoints, the response time and error rate are systematically affected by the size of the geometric difference In this report, we argue that these effects are not necessarily solid evidence for the use of mental transformations and against the use of invariants by the visual system We report an experiment in which observers were asked to give affine-invariant coordinates of a point located in an affine frame defined by three other points The angle subtended by the coordinate axes and the ratio of the lengths of their unit vectors systematically affected the measurement errors This finding demonstrates that the visual system's measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biederman

Gerhardstein

P.C.

(1993). Recognizing depth rotated objects Evidence and conditions for three dimensional viewpoint invariance, Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perecption and Performance, 19, 1162–1182.

Bruno

Cutting

J.E.

(1988). Minimodulanty and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 117, 161–170.

Cooper

L.A.

(1976). Demonstration of a mental analog of an external rotation, Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 296–302.

Cutting

J.E.

(1986). Perception with an eye for motion. Cambridge, MA MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Farah

M.J.

Rochlin

Klein

K.L.

(1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Science, 18, 325–344.

Gibson

J.J.

(1950). The perception of the visual world, Boston Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson

J.J.

(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston Houghton Mifflin.

Jolicoeur

(1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303.

Jolicoeur

Landau

M.J.

(1984). Effect of orientation on the identification of simple visual patterns. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 80–93.

10.

Koenderink

J.J.

van Doorn

A.J.

(1991). Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 8, 377–385.

11.

Kukkonen

H.T.

Foster

D.H.

Wood

J.R.

Wagemans

Van Gool

(1996). Qualitative cues in the discrimination of affice-transformed minimal patterns. Perception, 25, 195–206.

12.

Lowe

D.G.

(1987). Three-dimensional object recognition from two-dimensional images. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 355–395.

13.

Mundy

J.L.

Zisserman

, (Eds.), (1992). Geometric invariance in computer vision. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

14.

Pizlo

(1994). A theory of shape constancy based on perspective invariants. Vision Research, 34, 1637–1658.

15.

Shepard

R.N.

Cooper

L.A.

(1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

16.

Tarr

M.J.

(1995). Rotating objects to recognize them. A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomis Bulletin & Review, 2, 55–82.

17.

Tarr

M.J.

Bulthoff

H.H.

(1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1494–1505.

18.

Tarr

M.J.

Pinker

(1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233–282.

19.

Tarr

M.J.

Pinker

(1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame?Psychological Science, 1, 253–256.

20.

Ullman

(1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions. An approach to object recognition, Cognition, 12, 193–254.

21.

Van Gool

Moons

Pauwels

Wagemans

(1994). Invariance from the Euclidean geometer's perspective. Perception, 23, 547–561.

22.

Wagemans

(1993), Skewed symmetry. A nonaccidental property used to perceive visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 19, 364–380.

23.

Wagemans

Van Gool

Lamote

Foster

D.H.

(1996). Minimal in formation to determine affine shape equivalence. Manuscript submitted for publication.