Commentary on Tarr &PinkerAuthor(s): Scott H. JohnsonSource: Psychological Science, Vol. 2, No. 3 (May, 1991), pp. 205-206Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062620 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Psychological Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:12:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENTARY ON TARR & PINKER

Scott H. Johnson

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Commentary

Department of Psychology, Cornell University

Tarr & Pinker (1990) present evidence that time to recognize some two-dimensional forms varies linearly as a function of their orientation in the picture plane, even when the task does not demand identification of the fig- ures' handedness. The authors report such orientation effects obtain for stimuli that can only be distinguished by simultaneous consideration along two dimensions (e.g., horizontal and vertical), but not for forms that may be discriminated by comparison along a single dimension (see their Figure 3). Orientation effects are interpreted as evidence for subjects9 use of mental rotation to align dis- oriented images with viewpoint-dependent representa- tions in memory prior to recognition; their absence is interpreted as orientation-invariant recognition.

Failure to detect significant effects of orientation in time to recognize symmetrical figures may not, however, be an adequate criterion for establishing orientation in- dependence. As Jolicoeur and Landau (1984) have dem- onstrated, reaction (RT) methods, of the sort employed by Tarr and Pinker (1989; 1990), may be insensitive to minute yet persistent effects of orientation on recogni- tion. Using tachistoscopic presentations, Jolicoeur and Landau (1984) found error rates for recognition of letters that increased linearly with deviation from the canonical orientation. By charting the effects of increased exposure durations on accuracy performance, they were able to estimate that as little as 15 ms may be needed to fully compensate for 180 deg of stimulus rotation - a rate of

approximately .09 ms/deg. There is evidence in Tarr and Pinker's (1989; 1990) work for such rapid transforma- tional processes. For example, even stimuli that can be discriminated along a single dimension show a tendency toward linear orientation effects with slopes indicating rotation rates of: 1) .63 ms/deg for symmetrical shapes; 2) .29 ms/deg for skewed-symmetrical shapes; and 3) .18

ms/deg for bilaterally redundant shapes. The smallest of

tnese slopes suggests a rate ot rotation only halt as tast as Jolicoeur and Landau's (1984) estimates.

Interestingly, these rates are comparable to those ob- served after extensive practice with stimuli that initially showed large effects of orientation. In Block One of con- dition 0/105/-150 (Tarr & Pinker, 1989), for example, slopes for standard and reversed versions of the seven asymmetrical stimuli averaged 3.65 and - .55 ms/deg, re- spectively. However, by Block 13 slopes for standard and reversed versions settled at .69 ms/deg and .46 ms/ deg, respectively. Although practice does greatly dimin- ish effects of orientation on recognition, they are not en- tirely eliminated, at least within the range of practice trials that have been explored (e.g., Jolicoeur, 1985; Kaushall & Parsons, 1981)

In contrast to Tarr and Pinker's (1990) conclusions, these small and persistent orientation effects suggest that recognition of all stimuli in the present experiments was mediated by normalization to the canonical orientation, at a rate far more rapid than ordinary mental rotation (approximately 2.22-4.44 ms/deg for mirror-reversal de- cisions; see Shepard & Cooper, 1982). What needs to be addressed is why disoriented asymmetrical figures re- quire extensive practice before they can be recognized at a rate comparable to disoriented symmetrical forms.

Elsewhere, Tarr and Pinker (1989) have attributed dra- matic practice effects with asymmetrical stimuli to the development of multiple orientation-specific models as stimuli are repeatedly presented at various orientations. They argue that rotational transformations are then used to align disoriented objects with the nearest of these rep- resentations. However, it is unclear how their "multiple models plus transformation" hypothesis can accommo- date minute, linear effects of orientation that persist even after extensive practice. At least for highly familiar 2-D stimuli constrained to picture plane rotations, one might expect complete orientation independence in recognition once a sufficient number of orientation specific models had been stored. However, under conditions of brief ex- posure recognition errors for even highly overlearned stimuli like English letters, which are frequently and re- peatedly viewed at atypical orientations, increase lin- early with deviation from the canonical (Jolicoeur &

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful com- ments of James Cutting, Barbara Finlay, and Elizabeth Spelke dur-

ing preparation of this letter. Correspondence concerning this letter should be addressed to Scott H. Johnson, Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Uris Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-7601. e-mail:

huc@cornella.BITNET.

VOL. 2, NO. 3, MAY 1991 Copyright © 1991 American Psychological Society 205

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:12:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Commentary

Landau, 1984). In conjunction with other studies demon- strating linear effects of orientation on recognition laten- cies of various stimuli (e.g., Jolicoeur, 1985; Koriat & Norman, 1985), Tarr and Pinker's (1989) findings might be taken to suggest use of rapid rotational transforma- tions to align disoriented images with a single, viewpoint- dependent model specific to a given object's canonical orientation.

To evaluate these and other possibilities, future re- search into recognition of disoriented objects should in- corporate techniques sensitive to the possibility of ex- tremely rapid processes of alignment.

REFERENCES

Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 13, 289-303.

Jolicoeur, P., & Landau, M.J. (1984). Effects of orientation on the identification of simple visual patterns. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38(\), 80-93.

Kaushall, P., & Parsons, L.M. (1981). Optical information and practice in the discrimination of 3-D mirror-reflected objects. Perception, 10, 545-562.

Koriat, A., & Norman, J. (1985). Mental rotation and visual familiarity. Percep- tion & Psychophysics, 37, 429-439.

Shepard, R.N., & Cooper, L.A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.

Tarr, M.J., & Pinker, S. (1990). When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychological Science, 7(4), 253-256.

BEHAVIORAL and ^^/*°&e *> ̂ feij!>^ BRAIN SCIENCES

^*""\^.sfc ^°4?* Editor: Stevan Hamad, Princeton, NJ ^**********y^$S Behavioral and Brain Sciences publishes particularly significant and controversial "target articles." These have

^^<N|^I^^ ̂s"*l»« been successful in drawing out the leading investigators in a wide range of fields who discuss, debate and ^s"*l»«

critically analyze topics of current interest to the entire biobehavioral science community. Fascinating and often

surprising results come from the 20-30 open peer commentaries on each target article from psychologists, linguists, philosophers, neuroscientists, anthropologists, developmental and other specialists within and across these

disciplines. [QUARTERLY]

DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Editor and Deputy Editor: Dante Cicchetti, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester and Barry Nurcombe, Vanderbilt Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Hospital

This multidisciplinary journal is devoted to the publication of empirical, theoretical and review papers addressing the interrelationship of normal and pathological development in adults and children. It is intended to serve and integrate the emerging field of developmental psychopathology which strives to understand patterns of adaptation and maladaptation throughout the lifespan. Explorations of abnormal functioning in the social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic and biological domains help to clarify normal developmental processes. Reciprocally, elucidations of principles of normal development help to broaden our understanding of psychopathological conditions. [QUARTERLY]

PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN QUARTERLY Published on behalf of Division 35 of the American Psychological Association

Editor: Judith Worell, University of Kentucky

Psychology of Women Quarterly publishes empirical studies, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and book and media reviews addressing a wide range of issues aimed at establishing a greater understanding of women's issues and sex roles in society. The intent of the journal is to present current research, theory and application and to influence the development of the field through the maintenance of rigorous scholarly standards. [QUARTERLY]

VISUAL NEUROSCIENCE Editor: Katherine V. Fite, University of Massachusetts

Now published monthly, this journal is the leading publication for research and theoretical articles in basic visual neuroscience. Primary emphasis is on brain and retinal mechanisms that underlie visually -guided behaviors and visual perception. Visual Neuroscience brings together in one journal a broad range of studies which reflect the exciting diversity and originality of contemporary research in basic visual neuroscience. Methodologies are drawn from many related disciplines. Molecular, cellular, local-circuit, and systems-level analyses in both vertebrate and invertebrate species are presented. [MONTHLY]

Cambridge University Press • 40 West 20th St., New York. NY 10011 • The Edinburgh Bldg., Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

206 VOL. 2, NO. 3, MAY 1991

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:12:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions