摘要：Establishing correspondence between objects is fundamental for object constancy, similarity perception and identifying transformations. Previous studies measured point-to-point correspondence between objects before and after rigid and non-rigid shape transformations. However, we can also identify ‘similar parts’ on extremely different objects, such as butterflies and owls or lizards and whales. We measured point-to-point correspondence between such object pairs. In each trial, a dot was placed on the contour of one object, and participants had to place a dot on ‘the corresponding location’ of the other object. Responses show correspondence is established based on similarities between semantic parts (such as head, wings, or legs). We then measured correspondence between ambiguous objects with different labels (e.g., between ‘duck’ and ‘rabbit’ interpretations of the classic ambiguous figure). Despite identical geometries, correspondences were different across the interpretations, based on semantics (e.g., matching ‘Head’ to ‘Head’, ‘Tail’ to ‘Tail’). We present a zero-parameter model based on labeled semantic part data (obtained from a different group of participants) that well explains our data and outperforms an alternative model based on contour curvature. This demonstrates how we establish correspondence between very different objects by evaluating similarity between semantic parts, combining perceptual organization and cognitive processes.
其他摘要：Abstract Establishing correspondence between objects is fundamental for object constancy, similarity perception and identifying transformations. Previous studies measured point-to-point correspondence between objects before and after rigid and non-rigid shape transformations. However, we can also identify ‘similar parts’ on extremely different objects, such as butterflies and owls or lizards and whales. We measured point-to-point correspondence between such object pairs. In each trial, a dot was placed on the contour of one object, and participants had to place a dot on ‘the corresponding location’ of the other object. Responses show correspondence is established based on similarities between semantic parts (such as head, wings, or legs). We then measured correspondence between ambiguous objects with different labels (e.g., between ‘duck’ and ‘rabbit’ interpretations of the classic ambiguous figure). Despite identical geometries, correspondences were different across the interpretations, based on semantics (e.g., matching ‘Head’ to ‘Head’, ‘Tail’ to ‘Tail’). We present a zero-parameter model based on labeled semantic part data (obtained from a different group of participants) that well explains our data and outperforms an alternative model based on contour curvature. This demonstrates how we establish correspondence between very different objects by evaluating similarity between semantic parts, combining perceptual organization and cognitive processes.
