Eric E. Cooper

Evidence for Complete Translational and Reflectional Invariance in Visual Object Priming

The magnitude of priming on naming reaction times and on the error rates, resulting from the perception of a briefly presented picture of an object approximately 7 min before the primed object, was found to be independent of whether the primed object was originally viewed in the same hemifield, left—right or upper—lower, or in the same left—right orientation. Performance for same-name, different-examplar images was worse than for identical images, indicating that not only was there priming from block one to block two, but that some of the priming was visual, rather than purely verbal or conceptual. These results provide evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in the representation of objects for purposes of visual recognition. Explicit recognition memory for position and orientation was above chance, suggesting that the representation of objects for recognition is independent of the representations of the location and left—right orientation of objects in space.

Priming Contour-Deleted images: Evidence for intermediate Representations in Visual Object Recognition

The speed and accuracy of perceptual recognition of a briefly presented picture of an object is facilitated by its prior presentation. Picture priming tasks were used to assess whether the facilitation is a function of the repetition of: (a) the objects image features (viz., vertices and edges), (b) the object model (e.g., that it is a grand piano), or (c) a representation intermediate between (a) and (b) consisting of convex or singly concave components of the object, roughly corresponding to the objects parts. Subjects viewed pictures with half their contour removed by deleting either (a) every other image feature from each part, or (b) half the components. On a second (primed) block of trials, subjects saw: (a) the identical image that they viewed on the first block, (b) the complement which had the missing contours, or (c) a same name-different exemplar of the object class (e.g., a grand piano when an upright piano had been shown on the first block). With deletion of features, speed and accuracy of naming identical and complementary images were equivalent, indicating that none of the priming could be attributed to the features actually present in the image. Performance with both types of image enjoyed an advantage over that with the different exemplars, establishing that the priming was visual rather than verbal or conceptual. With deletion of the components, performance with identical images was much better than that with their complements. The latter were equivalent to the different exemplars, indicating that all the visual priming of an image of an object is through the activation of a representation of its components in specified relations. In terms of a recent neural net implementation of object recognition (Hummel & Biederman, in press), the results suggest that the locus of object priming may be at changes in the weight matrix for a geon assembly layer, where units have self-organized to represent combinations of convex or singly concave components (or geons) and their attributes (e.g., aspect ratio, orientation, and relations with other geons such as TOP-OF). The results of these experiments provide evidence for the psychological reality of intermediate representations in real-time visual object recognition.

The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images : Evidence for a dual representation of object shape

Three experiments investigated the role of visual attention in priming for object images and their left-right reflections. Objects to which participants attended were visually primed in both the same view and in the left-right reflected view; ignored objects were primed only in the same view. The effects of attention (attended vs. ignored) and view (same vs. reflected) were strictly additive. These results suggest that 2 separate representations mediate human object recognition (J.E. Hummel & B.J. Stankiewicz, 1996): One requires attention but is invariant with left-right reflection, whereas the other can be activated automatically but is sensitive to left-right reflection. Both representations appear to be invariant with translation across the visual field.

Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the relations among the primitives used in face identification and in basic-level object recognition are represented using coordinate or categorical relations. In 2 experiments the authors used photographs of famous peoples faces as stimuli in which each face had been altered to have either 1 of its eyes moved up from its normal position or both of its eyes moved up. Participants performed either a face identification task or a basic-level object recognition task with these stimuli. In the face identification task, 1-eye-moved faces were easier to recognize than 2-eyes-moved faces, whereas the basic-level object recognition task showed the opposite pattern of results. Results suggest that face identification involves a coordinate shape representation in which the precise locations of visual primitives are specified, whereas basic-level object recognition uses categorically coded relations.

Object recognition and laterality: null effects.

In two experiments, normal subjects named briefly presented pictures of objects that were shown either to the left or to the right of fixation. The net effects attributable to hemifield were negligible: naming RTs were 12 msec lower for pictures shown in the left visual field but error rates were slightly lower, by 0.8%, for pictures shown in the right visual field. In both experiments, a second block of trials was run to assess whether hemifield effects would be revealed in object priming. Naming RTs to same name--different shaped exemplar pictures were significantly longer than RTs for identical pictures, thus establishing that a component of the priming was visual, rather than only verbal or conceptual, but hemifield effects on priming were absent. Allowing for the (unlikely) possibility that variables with large differential left-right hemifield effects may be balancing and cancelling each other out, we conclude that there are no differential hemifield effects in either object recognition or object priming.

High level object recognition without an anterior inferior temporal lobe

Seven individuals with unilateral anterior inferior temporal (AIT) lobectomies performed two types of shape recognition tasks with line drawing of 3D objects briefly presented in either the left or the right visual field. In one task, subjects named familiar objects in a name priming paradigm. In the other task, subjects judged whether two objects, presented sequentially with an intervening mask, were the same or different in shape, disregarding differences in orientation of up to 60 degrees in depth. They could not use names or basic level concepts to do the matching as the stimuli were either nonsense objects or, if familiar objects, were of same name-different-shaped exemplars on different trials. The disadvantage of presenting an image to the lobectomized hemisphere was negligible in both tasks. Two non-exclusive possibilities are suggested by this result: (a) Object recognition is completed posterior to AIT, likely at the temporal-occipital boundary, with no deleterious retrograde effects on object recognition from the AIT section, or (b) Callosal transfer of object information prior to AIT is completely efficient. These results, along with results of single unit recording and lesion experiments in the monkey, PET and MRI imaging in humans, and a plausibility argument based on the pattern of callosal connections suggest both are correct. Rather than mediating real-time object recognition, AIT may code representations for visual episodes and scenes.

Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether the orientation between an object’s parts is coded categorically for object recognition and physical discrimination. In three experiments, line drawings of novel objects in which the relative orientation of object parts varied by steps of 30° were used. Participants performed either an object recognition task, in which they had to determine whether two objects were composed of the same set of parts, or a physical discrimination task, in which they had to determine whether two objects were physically identical. For object recognition, participants found it more difficult to compare the 0° and 30° versions and the 90° and 60° versions of an object than to compare the 30° and 60° versions, but only at an extended interstimulus interval (ISI). Categorical coding was also found in the physical discrimination task. These results suggest that relative orientation is coded categorically for both object recognition and physical discrimination, although metric information appears to be coded as well, especially at brief ISIs.

To what extent can matching algorithms based on direct outputs of spatial filters account for human object recognition

A number of recent successful models of face recognition posit only two layers, an input layer consisting of a lattice of spatial filters and a single subsequent stage by which those descriptor values are mapped directly onto an object representation layer by standard matching methods such as stochastic optimization. Is this approach sufficient for modeling human object recognition? We tested whether a highly efficient version of such a two-layer model would manifest effects similar to those shown by humans when given the task of recognizing images of objects that had been employed in a series of psychophysical experiments. System accuracy was quite high overall, but was qualitatively different from that evidenced by humans in object recognition tasks. The discrepancy between the systems performance and human performance is likely to be revealed by all models that map filter values directly onto object units. These results suggest that human object recognition (as opposed to face recognition) may be difficult to approximate by models that do not posit hidden units for explicit representation of intermediate entities such as edges, viewpoint invariant classifiers, axes, shocks and object parts.

The priming of face recognition after metric transformations.

Four experiments were performed to test whether the perceptual priming of face recognition would show invariance to changes in size, position, reflectional orientation (mirror reversal), and picture-plane rotation. In all experiments, subjects recognized faces in two blocks of trials; in the second block, some of the faces were identical to those in the first, and others had undergone metric transformations. The results show that subjects were equally fast to recognize faces whether or not the faces had changed in size, position, or reflectional orientation between the first and second presentations of the faces. In contrast, subjects were slower to recognize both faces and objects when they were planar-rotated between the first and second presentations. The results suggest that the same metric invariances are shown by both face recognition and basic-level object recognition.

Qualitative Differences in the Representation of Spatial Relations for Different Object Classes.

Two experiments investigated whether the representations used for animal, produce, and object recognition code spatial relations in a similar manner. Experiment 1 tested the effects of planar rotation on the recognition of animals and nonanimal objects. Response times for recognizing animals followed an inverted U-shaped function, whereas those for basic-level object recognition followed an M-shaped function (with a dip at 1800). Experiment 2 tested for laterality effects in the recognition of animals, produce, and objects. A right-hemisphere advantage was found for recognizing animals, whereas no hemispheric advantages were found for recognizing produce or objects. These results suggest that the recognition of animals with nonunique structural descriptions is mediated using coordinate spatial relations, whereas most forms of basic-level object recognition are mediated using categorical spatial relations.