ArticleJournal of vision2013
Generalization between canonical and non-canonical views in object recognition.
Article in Journal of vision, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- At the roots of Plant Awareness Disparity (PAD): Semantic processing and numerosity perception.PloS one · 2026Article
- Novel Prototype and Exemplar (NPE) database: A set of 2700 novel 3D images with viewpoint and shape variations.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Flexible Orientation Tuning of Visual Representations of Human Body Postures: Evidence From Long-Term Priming.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Dynamics of 3D view invariance in monkey inferotemporal cortex.Journal of neurophysiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viewpoint generalization in object recognition is the process that allows recognition of a given 3D object from many different viewpoints despite variations in its 2D projections. We used the canonical view effects as a foundation to empirically test the validity of a major theory in object recognition, the view-approximation model (Poggio & Edelman, 1990). This model predicts that generalization should be better when an object is first seen from a non-canonical view and then a canonical view than when seen in the reversed order. We also manipulated object similarity to study the degree to which this view generalization was constrained by shape details and task instructions (object vs. image recognition). Old-new recognition performance for basic and subordinate level objects was measured in separate blocks. We found that for object recognition, view generalization between canonical and non-canonical views was comparable for basic level objects. For subordinate level objects, recognition performance was more accurate from non-canonical to canonical views than the other way around. When the task was changed from object recognition to image recognition, the pattern of the results reversed. Interestingly, participants responded "old" to "new" images of "old" objects with a substantially higher rate than to "new" objects, despite instructions to the contrary, thereby indicating involuntary view generalization. Our empirical findings are incompatible with the prediction of the view-approximation theory, and argue against the hypothesis that views are stored independently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.