Compare and contrast theories of object recognition. How well do they explain how we are able to recognise three dimensional objects despite changes in viewing angle?

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. 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

References: Biederman, I. (1987a) ‘Recognition by components: a theory of human image understanding’, Psychological Review, vol.94 In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp123-126). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Biederman, I. (1987b)’Matching image edges to object memory’, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Vision In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp124). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Lawson, R and Humphrys, G.W. (1996) ‘View-specificity in object processing: evidence from picture matching’, In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp123). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Marr, D. (1977) ‘Analysis of occluding contour’, In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp116-123). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Marr, D. and Nishihara, H.K. (1978)’Representations and recognition of the spatial organisation of three-dimensional shapes’ In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp119-123). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Tarr, M.J. (1995) ‘Rotating objects to recognise them: a case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects’, In Kaye, H. (2010). Cognitive Psychology (pp106-123). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.