Reference Frames and Relations in Computational Models of Object Recognition

Abstract

1. See, e.g., I. Biederman, Recognition by com ponents: A theory of human image understanding, Psychological Review, 94, 115-147 (1987); D. Marr, Vision (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1982); S. Palmer and I. Rock, Rethinking perceptual orga nization: The role of uniform connectedness, Psy chonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 29-55 (1994). 2. M.A. Peterson, E.H. Harvey, and H.L. Wei denbacher, Shape recognition inputs to figure ground organization: Which route counts? journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1075-1089 (1991). 3. M.A. Peterson and J. Hochberg, Necessary considerations for a theory of form perception: A theoretical and empirical reply to Boselie and Leeu wenberg, Perception, 18, 105-119 (1989). 4. P. Jolicoeur, Identification of disoriented ob jects: A dual systems theory, Mind & Language, 5, 387-410 (1990). 5. B.S. Gibson and M.A. Peterson, Does orien tation-independent object recognition precede ori entation-dependent object recognition? Evidence from a priming paradigm, journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 299-316(1994). 6. M.A. Peterson and B.S. Gibson, Must shape recognition follow figure-ground organization? An assumption in peril, Psychological Science (in press). 7. D.D. Hoffman and W. Richards, The parts of recognition, in Visual Cognition, S. Pinker, Ed. (Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, 1985). 8. M.A. Peterson and B.S. Gibson, Shape rec ognition contributions to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional displays, Cognitive Psychol ogy's, 383-429 (1993). 9. M.A. Peterson and B.S. Gibson, Object rec ognition contributions to figure-ground organiza tion: Operations on outlines and subjective con tours, Perception & Psychophysics (in press).