Compare and contrast theories of object recognition

Table of Content

Object recognition is one of the most essential elements for the survival of all living creatures. Object recognition is considered the determination of the implication of a certain object. Object recognition is imperative given that humans and other living creatures manage to respond to the imperative features of the presented object. Assuming that present information concerning an object appears in two dimensions within the eye retina, there are many possibilities of confusing the same object with another thus substantiating visual recognition.

However objects are not colour coded or labelled for us. Many objects look similar and do not contain one identifying mark or viewed in identical conditions. So why do humans have an extraordinary ability to identify a certain object regardless of its disparity in appearance. Additionally, humans can manage to take a broad view through observation of collections of objects that are not familiar. These objects are often identified from different views, vantage points, sizes and locations. Objects can also be distinguished in cases where they have been partly blocked from view.

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

Various object recognition conjectures present the subject through utilization of different perspectives thus, bringing a clear distinction to understand object recognition. In accordance to Marr and Nishihara, objects ought to be presented within the reference frame implying that it should be founded on the shape it attains. In order to describe an object based on its shape, canonical coordinate frames need to be established prior to the establishment of the form description. The appropriate collection of expressive rudiments for describing a shape is reliant on the degree of features that the shape description encapsulates.

Marr and Nishihara proposed that a modular orderliness of shapes with dissimilar sizes be utilized in different degrees. This enables a portrayal at an elevated level to be stable over modifications in well detailed although sensitive to these modifications has to be present at other degrees. Marr and Nishihara limited their arguments to objects that can be portrayed as collections of one or many generalized cones. According to these theorists, generalized cones refer to surfaces generated by repositioning a cross-section of steady shape although with inconsistent magnitude in the length of an axis.

These cones can become either thicker or thinner given that their shapes get conserved. Marr puts forward the idea that it is possible to decipher the shape of an object based on their occluding contours, defined as an objects silhouette. The final point of this theory is that all the points lie in the same plane from the viewer’s point of view. However this can be problematic as some objects produce the same silhouette. The viewer will then locate the axis or axes appropriate to identify the object The approach presented by the two theorists reflected on, the coordinate frame to be used, in working out the setback of object constancy.

They asserted that an object-centered coordinate frame served better place in addressing the setback than viewer-centered coordinate structure. This is because an object-centered frame is never affected by the position or vantage points. The approach a modular, hierarchical arrangement permits for the generalization and sensitivity by permitting dissimilar levels of content in the portrayals. Description procedure necessitates the hierarchical disintegration of objects into collections of articulated components that bear own axis and focal points with the primary axis.

In accordance to the conjecture of object recognition, recognition transpires in three dissimilar levels. The levels are the single-model axis where the primary stage in the model is the recognition of the principal axis of the entity or item. The other level is the component axes where the axis of every small, articulated component of the presented object, gets identified. Finally, the 3D prototype matches where a matchup between the display of the components and a stored 3D prototypical description is carried out in order to categorize a certain object.

Even though, object comparisons appear to be rapider in cases where the principal axis of the presented object appears similar to the object that it is being evaluated alongside, no compelling information has been presented to prop up the psychological actuality of the Marr and Nishihara prototype. This idea is supported by Lawson and Humphreys (1996) study in which participants identified objects that had been rotated. However in patients where there had been damage to the right hemisphere they could recognise objects presented in a particular view but not when in an unusual view, Warrington and Taylor (1978).

Images of objects with a vital component obscured or the central axis foreshortened as a result of rotation produced a similar result. Humphreys and Riddoch (1984) An alternative would be to consider viewpoint dependant theories which argue that a multi views approach takes account of the appearance of object from different viewpoints and recognition is viewpoint dependant as the time and accuracy of identification of objects would vary depending on decrepancies between percept and target views. However viewpoint dependant theories do not comply to one or more of the conditions for immediate viewpoint invariance.

Some work has been carried out that analyses how views learned over experience (Tarr and Pinker, 1989). It is considered that Biederman theory was an extension of the offered theory by Marr and Nishihara with the present supposition that objects comprise of fundamental primitives, known as geons. This theory was worked out in order to take care of primal identification of objects. According to the conjecture, the visual object gets identified through the fitness of the stored object depiction with geon-based data offered by the visual object.

Similar to Marr and Nishihara, Biederman argues a particular aspect of viewpoint-invariant and suggests that objects are disintegrated into smaller components on the grounds of geometrical characteristics of occluding outlines in the image given that these components are embodied with regard to well-defined concavities on the outlines. These components are regarded geometric primitives otherwise known as geons or geometric ions. These comprise shapes such as cylinders and cones. These objects are embodied as structural portrayals founded on the geometric primitives.

According to Biederman 36 geons to would be required to create descriptions of all frequently viewed objects. In accordance to the conjecture, the primitives are delineated by attributes such as curvilinearity, parallelism, cotermination, symmetry and collinearity. These properties are non-accidental implying that they are not variable, under alteration and concerning the vantage or viewpoints. In this approach, recognition progresses directly from the image attributes without the precise depiction of the three dimensional manifestation. This can be substantiated by experiments where line drawing of an object becomes blocked out.

In a circumstance where adequate information for the geometric ions is recognised, the object is identified effortlessly than in circumstances where the geometric ions or primitives are blocked out. The conjecture presents an analysis concerning the determination of object geons. The preliminary step is edge extraction, which presents receptiveness to disparities in surface attributes, such as viewing a wheel straight on. Creation of an objects account independent of viewpoint is an essential criteria in both Marr and Nishihara and Biederman theories.

However some researchers show that there may be inconsistancies with their findings. Buthoff and Edelman (1992) found that participant inability to recognise difficult objects even when presented in a novel viewpoint and should have allowed for an object centred description. This indicates that there may be a viewpoint- dependant recognition (Tarr 1995). Biederman presents similar opinion to Marr and Nishihara concerning the segmentation of visual image into geometric primitives or ions. The concave components of the object outline bear significance.

However, the outlasting component to the conjecture occurs in determining the edge information that an object holds that is indispensable attributes of the outstanding invariant across divergent observation angles. Invariant properties for the edges include the curvature, collection of positions that are parallel, edges ending at similar positions and points collinear to each other. The conjecture asserts that geons of visual objects are generated from the invariant properties. Foster and Gilson put forward a simple model of object recognition as an alternative with two basic terms.

One reflecting the object structure the other reflecting image based features. Together they predict performance that is view-point dependant. Identifying the the number of aspects tin an object is a simple structural component. However further investigation taking account of more complex objects need to be studied. Biederman theory envisions that all intricate forms are generated from uncomplicated geometrical components regarded as geons and that pattern identification include recognition of these elements.

Contrary to Biederman, Marr and Nishihara, utilizes the concepts of visual processing regarded as the computational approach. This approach seeks to delineate or outline the stages involved in pulling out constructive three-dimensional (3D) data from two dimensional depictions or representations. Thus, Marr and Nishihara conjecture seems excessively intricate from the beginning since an assortment of sketch and models are engrossed. On the contrary, Biederman conjecture appears to enfold object recognition from the basic levels to the intricate levels.

Additionally, the two conjectures appear essentially dissimilar since Marr and Nishihara conjecture propose that humans recognize objects from their constituents and the contours of these components. These two theories may be considered top-down processing since the objects that is ultimately perceived and the human knowledge of the globe is utilized to recognise at the last part of the procedure. A viewpoint-independent conjecture fundamentally denotes that objects are psychologically depicted as 3D models, therefore, forecasting that these depictions ought to be uniformly available from any position of view.

However, Biederman theory barely forecasts that these depictions are available from all view positions implying that two or more structural descriptions are necessitated in order to identify a certain object. Therefore, Biederman’s theory is divergent from the other conjecture since it proposes that when humans observe an object, they are capable of recognizing such an object having viewed analogous patterns in the precedent. Biederman’s conjecture is founded upon the recognition of object attributes and utilizing these attributes to categorize object geons and their connections.

Visual memory is utilized in determining whether the offered objects appear similar to the object that has been perceived. The two theories bear an inevitable relationship since they have a basis in Marr and Nishihara theory. Although, some disparities and similarities exist between the two, a relationship still exists since they are plausible conjectures concerning 3D objection identification. However, Marr and Nishihara conjecture seems more intricate than the Biederman’s theory bearing in contemplation the concepts utilized.

Cite this page

Compare and contrast theories of object recognition. (2016, Jul 16). Retrieved from

Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront