ORIGINAL PAPER
The effect of three-dimensional imaging of well-known objects on time and accuracy of mental rotation
 
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2014-03-25
Final revision date: 2014-04-28
Acceptance date: 2014-04-28
Online publication date: 2014-07-02
Publication date: 2014-07-02
 
Health Psychology Report 2014;2(2):90–98
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
The purpose of this study was to verify hypotheses concerning the effect of three-dimensional imaging and the canonicity of objects presented in the original position on the reaction time (RT) and the accuracy (A) of mental rotation task (MRT) execution. The classical paradigm of MRT, developed by Shepard and Metzler (1971), was used in the experiment.

Participants and procedure
One hundred fifty-eight undergraduate students (88 female and 70 male), aged 18-30 years, participated in the experiment. All participants had normal vision or corrected vision, and reported no stereo blindness. The sequential version of the MRT was used in the experiment. Participants answered whether the object observed in the second position was only rotated or both rotated and mirror-reversed, in comparison to its original position. The answer (accuracy) and its latency (RT) were recorded.

Results
As predicted by the mental rotation model, both the “U”-shaped A-MRT distribution and the inverted “U”-shaped RT-MRT distribution were found, due to the angular disparity. For the RT-MRT, this effect was more pronounced when the objects were displayed stereoscopically than in a plane, and when the objects were presented in the original position from the canonical orientation rather than an unusual point of view. On the other hand, in the case of the A-MRT, an effect of the orientation of objects presented in the original position on strengthening the relationship between accuracy and angular disparity was found.

Conclusions
The results indicated that the interactions between the presentation of the objects in the mental rotation task (stereoscopically vs. in a plane) and the orientation of the object in its original position (canonically vs. unusual) are more complicated than would appear from predictions of classical theories of mental rotation. The results of this study are discussed in relation to the theories of recognition and categorization.
 
REFERENCES (43)
1.
Aitsiselmi, Y., & Holliman, N. S. (2009). Using mental rotation to evaluate the benefits of stereoscopic displays. Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XX (2009) Proceedings of the SPIE Volume 7237.
 
2.
Bauer, B., & Jolicoeur, P. (1996). Stimulus dimensionality effects in mental rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 82-94.
 
3.
Biederman, I., & Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for 3D viewpoint invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1162-1182.
 
4.
Bülthoff, H. H., Edelman, S. Y., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). How are three-dimensional objects represented in the brain? Cerebral Cortex, 5, 247-260.
 
5.
Corballis, M. C. (1988). Distinguishing clockwise from counterclockwise: does it require mental rotation? Memory & Cognition, 16, 567-578.
 
6.
Cutzu, F., & Edelman, S. (1994). Canonical views in object representation and recognition. Vision Research, 34, 3037-3056.
 
7.
Cutzu, F., & Edelman, S. (1998). Representation of object similarity in human vision: psychophysics and a computational model. Vision Research, 38, 2229-2257.
 
8.
Edelman, S. (1995). Representation of similarity in three-dimensional object discrimination. Neural Computation, 7, 408-423.
 
9.
Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385-2400.
 
10.
Farah, M. J. (1990). Visual agnosia: Disorders of object recognition and what they tell us about normal vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 
11.
Gaggioli, A., & Breining, R. (2001). Perception and cognition in immersive virtual reality. In: G. Riva, F. Davide (eds.). Communications through virtual technologies: identity, community and technology in the communication age (pp. 71-86). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
 
12.
Graf, M. (2006). Coordinate transformations in object recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 920-945.
 
13.
Jaušovec, N., & Jaušovec, K. (2012). Sex differences in mental rotation and cortical activation patterns: Can training change them? Intelligence, 40, 151-162.
 
14.
Jolicoeur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 13, 289-303.
 
15.
Jolicoeur, P., Regehr, S., Smith, L., & Smith, G. (1985). Mental rotation of representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 100-129.
 
16.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Maguire, M., Diwadkar, V., & McMains, S. (2001). Mental rotation of objects retrieved from memory: a functional MRI study of spatial processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 493-504.
 
17.
Kanamori, N., & Takeda, Y. (2003). The difference of mental processes between depth and plane rotation in natural objects. Technical Report on Attention and Cognition, 24, 1-4.
 
18.
Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2011). Canonical visual size for real-world objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 23-37.
 
19.
Koscik, T., O’Leary, D., Moser, D. J., Andreasen, N. C., & Nopoulos, P. (2009). Sex differences in parietal lobe morphology: relationship to mental rotation performance. Brain Cognition, 69: 451-459.
 
20.
Kucian, K., Loenneker, T., Dietrich, T., Martin, E., & Von Aster, M. (2005). Gender differences in brain activation patterns during mental rotation and number related cognitive tasks. Psychology Science, 47, 112-131.
 
21.
Lawson, R., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Recognition thresholds for plane-rotated pictures of familiar objects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 17-41.
 
22.
McWilliams, W., Hamilton, C. J., & Muncer, S. J. (1997). On mental rotation in three dimensions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 297-298.
 
23.
Murray, J. (1997). Flipping and spinning: spatial transformation procedures in the identification of rotated natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 25, 96-105.
 
24.
Neubauer, A. C., Bergner, S., & Schatz, M. (2010). Two- vs. three-dimensional presentation of mental rotation task: sex differences and effects of training on performance and brain activation. Intelligence, 38, 529-539.
 
25.
Noudoost, B., Adibi, M., Moeeny, A., & Esteky, H. (2005). Configural and analytical processing of familiar and unfamiliar objects. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 436-441.
 
26.
Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 
27.
Palmer, S. E., Rosch, E., & Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In: J. Long, A. Baddeley (eds.). Attention and performance (vol. 9, pp. 135-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
28.
Parsons, L. M. (1995). Inability to reason an object’s orientation using an axis and angle of rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1259-1277.
 
29.
Parsons, T. D, Larson, P., Kratz, K., Thiebaux, M., Bluestein, B., Buckwalter, J. G., & Rizzo, A. A. (2004). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial rotation in a virtual environment. Neuropsychologia, 42, 555-562.
 
30.
Petit, L., Pegna, A., Mayer, E., & Hauert, C. (2003). Representation of anatomical constraints in motor imagery: Mental rotation of a body segment. Brain and Cognition, 51, 95-101.
 
31.
Robert, M., & Chevrier, E. (2003). Does men’s advantage in mental rotation persist when real three-dimensional objects are either felt or seen? Memory and Cognition, 31, 1136-1145.
 
32.
Ruddle, R., & Jones, D. (2001). Manual and virtual rotation of a three-dimensional object. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 286-296.
 
33.
Schendan, H. E., & Stern, C. E. (2008). Where vision meets memory: prefrontal-posterior networks for visual object constancy during categorization and recognition. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1695-1711.
 
34.
Schendan, H. E., & Stern, C. E. (2007). Mental rotation and object categorization share a common network of prefrontal and dorsal and ventral regions of posterior cortex. Neuroimage, 35, 1264-1277.
 
35.
Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 
36.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
 
37.
Shepard, S., & Metzler, D. (1988). Mental rotation: effects of dimensionality of objects and type of task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 3-11.
 
38.
Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: a case study of the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 2, 55-82.
 
39.
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 233-282.
 
40.
Turnbull, O. H., & McCarthy, R. A. (1996). When is a view unusual? A single case study of orientation-dependent visual agnosia. Brain Research Bulletin, 40, 497-502.
 
41.
Warrington, E. K., & Taylor, A. M. (1973). The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. Cortex, 9, 152-164.
 
42.
Zacks, J. M., & Michelon, P. (2005). Transformations of visuospatial images. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 96-118.
 
43.
Zacks, J. M., Mires, J., Tversky, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2002). Mental spatial trans-formations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2, 315-332.
 
eISSN:2353-5571
ISSN:2353-4184