Compare and Contrast Marr and Nishihara’s and Biederman’s Theories of Object Recognition. How Well Do They Explain How We Are Able to Recognize Three Dimensional Objects Despite Changes in Viewing Angle?
Compare and contrast Marr and Nishihara’s and Biederman’s theories of object recognition. How well do they explain how we are able to recognize three dimensional objects despite changes in viewing angle?
Humphreys and Bruce (1989) proposed a model of object recognition that fits a wider context of cognition. According to them, the recognition of objects occurs in a series of stages. First, sensory input is generated, leading to perceptual classification, where the information is compared with previously stored descriptions of objects. Then, the object is recognized and can be semantically classified and subsequently named. This approach is, however, over-simplified. Other theories like Marr and Nishihara’s and Biederman’s…show more content… This description is then matched against those stored in memory. According to Biedermann, geons are detected on the basis of non-accidental properties such as collinearity, symmetry and parallelism. Like Marr and Nishihara, Biedermann sustains that primitives are invariant under changes in viewpoint.
Similarly, both theories are supported by research. Lawson and Humphreys (1996), for example, showed that recognition is affected more by tilt of major axis (foreshortening) than any other rotation, which endorses Marr’s and Nishihara prediction that establishing a central axis is crucial to the process of recognition. Warrington and Taylor (1978) reported that brain damaged patients could recognize objects presented in a typical view only. These patients found difficult to say if two photographs presented simultaneously were the same object when one image was a typical view and the other an unusual view. Although this could be explained as the patient’s inability to transform a 2D version of the atypical view into a 3D model, it could also be due to difficulty in establishing the central axis or due to some features of the object being hidden. In a later study, Humphreys and Riddoch (1984) used images where either the axis had been foreshortened through rotation or a critical feature was hidden. They found that patients had more problems recognizing the images with a foreshortened axis than the ones where a critical feature was hidden. Their