title: View sensitivity increases for same-shape matches if mismatches show pairs of more similar shapes.
abstract: Lawson, Bülthoff, and Dumbell (2003) found increased view sensitivity when more similar shapes had to be discriminated. Their sequential picture-picture matching studies showed depth-rotated views of novel, complex, 3-D objects. However, with a similar task and stimuli, Hayward and Williams (2000) found no variation in view sensitivity on same-shape match trials depending on whether similar or dissimilar pairs of shapes were shown on mismatch trials. Thus view sensitivity increases from dissimilar-shape mismatches to similar-shape mismatches to same-shape matches (Lawson et al., 2003). However, view sensitivity may not increase on same-shape matches if those trials are combined with similar-rather than dissimilar-shape mismatches (Hayward & Williams, 2000). The latter result was reexamined here. Matches were view sensitive given even the dissimilar-shape mismatch context. This view sensitivity increased in the medium and especially the hard contexts that showed similar shapes on mismatches. Thus, indirectly increasing shape similarity via mismatch context modulated view-change effects (cf. Hayward & Williams, 2000).
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England. rlawson@liv.ac.uk
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Lawson
mesh_terms: D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D011930:Reaction Time; D014796:Visual Perception
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Apr;26(2):568-81
references.pmid: 10811163
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1999 Sep;102(2-3):221-45
references.pmid: 10504882
references.citation: Perception. 2001;30(9):1057-81
references.pmid: 11694083
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1998 Aug;60(6):1052-66
references.pmid: 9718963
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Jan 1;89(1):60-4
references.pmid: 1729718
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(7):917-30
references.pmid: 11900744
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Apr;22(2):395-416
references.pmid: 8934852
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Apr;24(2):413-26
references.pmid: 9606109
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2006 May;68(4):655-73
references.pmid: 16933429
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 Jan;11(1):7-12
references.pmid: 11228847
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003 Jan;112(1):17-41
references.pmid: 12423898
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Sep 22;269(1503):1939-47
references.pmid: 12350257
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1998 Jul;26(4):791-803
references.pmid: 9701970
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Dec;27(6):1468-84
references.pmid: 11766937
references.citation: Perception. 2003;32(12):1465-98
references.pmid: 14992424
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):23-30
references.pmid: 12517355
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Dec;19(6):1162-82
references.pmid: 8294886
references.citation: Perception. 2001;30(9):1047-56
references.pmid: 11694082
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1987 Apr;19(2):280-93
references.pmid: 3581759