Effects of Plane Rotation, Task, and Complexity on Recognition of Familiar and Chimeric Objects

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2002 Aug 20

PMID 12184551

Citations 3

Authors

Toby J Lloyd-Jones

Linda Luckhurst

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We examined the effects of plane rotation, task, and visual complexity on the recognition of familiar and chimeric objects. The effects of rotation, with response times increasing linearly and monotonically with rotation from the upright, were equivalent for tasks requiring different degrees of visual differentiation of the target from contrasting stimuli--namely, (1) deciding whether the stimulus was living or nonliving (semantic classification), (2) deciding whether the stimulus was an object or a nonobject (object decision), and (3) naming. The effects of complexity, with shorter response times to more complex stimuli, were most apparent in semantic classification and object decision and were additive with the effects of rotation. We discuss the implications of these results for theories of the relationship between the process of normalization and the determining of object identity.

Citing Articles

Large inversion effects for common objects and objects that require little if any holistic processing.

Gerlach C Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7275.

PMID: 40025197 PMC: 11873121. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92035-3.

Size does not matter: size-invariant echo-acoustic object classification.

Genzel D, Wiegrebe L J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2012; 199(2):159-68.

PMID: 23180047 DOI: 10.1007/s00359-012-0777-3.

Sources of error in picture naming under time pressure.

Lloyd-Jones T, Nettlemill M Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(4):816-36.

PMID: 17848037 DOI: 10.3758/bf03193317.

Verbal overshadowing of perceptual discrimination.

Lloyd-Jones T, Brown C, Clarke S Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(2):269-74.

PMID: 16892993 DOI: 10.3758/bf03193842.

References

McMullen P, Jolicoeur P . Reference frame and effects of orientation on finding the tops of rotated objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992; 18(3):807-20. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.18.3.807. View

Humphreys G, Riddoch M . Routes to object constancy: implications from neurological impairments of object constancy. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1984; 36(3):385-415. DOI: 10.1080/14640748408402169. View

Biederman I . Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev. 1987; 94(2):115-147. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115. View

Lawson R . Achieving visual object constancy across plane rotation and depth rotation. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1999; 102(2-3):221-45. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(98)00052-3. View

Snodgrass J, Vanderwart M . A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980; 6(2):174-215. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.6.2.174. View

Dror I, Ivey C, Rogus C . Visual mental rotation of possible and impossible objects. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011; 4(2):242-7. DOI: 10.3758/BF03209400. View

Jolicoeur P, Gluck M, Kosslyn S . Pictures and names: making the connection. Cogn Psychol. 1984; 16(2):243-75. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(84)90009-4. View

Ullman S . Visual routines. Cognition. 1984; 18(1-3):97-159. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(84)90023-4. View

Johnson C, Paivio A, Clark J . Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychol Bull. 1996; 120(1):113-39. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.113. View

10.

Ullman S . Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition. Cognition. 1989; 32(3):193-254. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90036-x. View

11.

Hamm J, McMullen P . Effects of orientation on the identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(2):413-26. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.2.413. View

12.

Job R, Rumiati R, Lotto L . The picture superiority effect in categorization: visual or semantic?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992; 18(5):1019-28. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.5.1019. View

13.

Jolicoeur P, Ullman S, Mackay M . Visual curve tracing properties. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991; 17(4):997-1022. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.17.4.997. View

14.

Snodgrass J, McCullough B . The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986; 12(1):147-54. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.1.147. View

15.

Humphreys G . Perceptual differentiation as a source of category effects in object processing: evidence from naming and object decision. Mem Cognit. 1997; 25(1):18-35. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197282. View

16.

Humphreys G, Lamote C . An interactive activation approach to object processing: effects of structural similarity, name frequency, and task in normality and pathology. Memory. 1995; 3(3-4):535-86. DOI: 10.1080/09658219508253164. View

17.

Tarr M, Pinker S . Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cogn Psychol. 1989; 21(2):233-82. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90009-1. View

18.

Lloyd-Jones T, Luckhurst L . Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things. Mem Cognit. 2002; 30(4):489-98. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194950. View

19.

Murray J . Flipping and spinning: spatial transformation procedures in the identification of rotated natural objects. Mem Cognit. 1997; 25(1):96-105. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197287. View

20.

Corballis M . Recognition of disoriented shapes. Psychol Rev. 1988; 95(1):115-23. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.95.1.115. View