Cargando…

Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between

Visual objects are effortlessly recognized from their outlines, largely irrespective of viewpoint. Previous studies have drawn different conclusions regarding the importance to shape recognition of specific shape features such as convexities and concavities. However, most studies employed familiar o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmidtmann, Gunnar, Jennings, Ben J., Kingdom, Frederick A. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26598139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17142
_version_ 1782402340466196480
author Schmidtmann, Gunnar
Jennings, Ben J.
Kingdom, Frederick A. A.
author_facet Schmidtmann, Gunnar
Jennings, Ben J.
Kingdom, Frederick A. A.
author_sort Schmidtmann, Gunnar
collection PubMed
description Visual objects are effortlessly recognized from their outlines, largely irrespective of viewpoint. Previous studies have drawn different conclusions regarding the importance to shape recognition of specific shape features such as convexities and concavities. However, most studies employed familiar objects, or shapes without curves, and did not measure shape recognition across changes in scale and position. We present a novel set of random shapes with well-defined convexities, concavities and inflections (intermediate points), segmented to isolate each feature type. Observers matched the segmented reference shapes to one of two subsequently presented whole-contour shapes (target or distractor) that were re-scaled and re-positioned. For very short segment lengths, performance was significantly higher for convexities than for concavities or intermediate points and for convexities remained constant with increasing segment length. For concavities and intermediate points, performance improved with increasing segment length, reaching convexity performance only for long segments. No significant differences between concavities and intermediates were found. These results show for the first time that closed curvilinear shapes are encoded using the positions of convexities, rather than concavities or intermediate regions. A shape-template model with no free parameters gave an excellent account of the data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4657129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46571292015-11-30 Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between Schmidtmann, Gunnar Jennings, Ben J. Kingdom, Frederick A. A. Sci Rep Article Visual objects are effortlessly recognized from their outlines, largely irrespective of viewpoint. Previous studies have drawn different conclusions regarding the importance to shape recognition of specific shape features such as convexities and concavities. However, most studies employed familiar objects, or shapes without curves, and did not measure shape recognition across changes in scale and position. We present a novel set of random shapes with well-defined convexities, concavities and inflections (intermediate points), segmented to isolate each feature type. Observers matched the segmented reference shapes to one of two subsequently presented whole-contour shapes (target or distractor) that were re-scaled and re-positioned. For very short segment lengths, performance was significantly higher for convexities than for concavities or intermediate points and for convexities remained constant with increasing segment length. For concavities and intermediate points, performance improved with increasing segment length, reaching convexity performance only for long segments. No significant differences between concavities and intermediates were found. These results show for the first time that closed curvilinear shapes are encoded using the positions of convexities, rather than concavities or intermediate regions. A shape-template model with no free parameters gave an excellent account of the data. Nature Publishing Group 2015-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4657129/ /pubmed/26598139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17142 Text en Copyright © 2015, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Schmidtmann, Gunnar
Jennings, Ben J.
Kingdom, Frederick A. A.
Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title_full Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title_fullStr Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title_full_unstemmed Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title_short Shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
title_sort shape recognition: convexities, concavities and things in between
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26598139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17142
work_keys_str_mv AT schmidtmanngunnar shaperecognitionconvexitiesconcavitiesandthingsinbetween
AT jenningsbenj shaperecognitionconvexitiesconcavitiesandthingsinbetween
AT kingdomfrederickaa shaperecognitionconvexitiesconcavitiesandthingsinbetween