Online analysis compared expertise in aerial views affecting recognition accuracy and response times.
Ordnance Survey (OS) remote sensing surveyors have extensive experience with aerial views of scenes and objects. Building on our previous work with this group, we investigated whether their expertise influenced performance on a same/different object recognition task involving houses. In an online study, these stimuli were shown from both familiar ground-level viewpoints and from what is for most people, unfamiliar aerial viewpoints. OS experts and novices compared achromatic, disparity-free images with aerial perspectives rotated around the clock against canonical ground-views; we measured response times (RTs) and sensitivities (d'). In two 'grounding' tasks using rotated letters, we found conventional outcomes for both groups, validating the online approach. Experiment 1 (non-matching letters) yielded ceiling-level performance with no signs of mental rotation, consistent with a feature-based recognition strategy. In Experiment 2 (mirror reversed letters), both groups showed orientation-dependent performance, but experts exhibited a speed-accuracy trade-off, responding more cautiously than novices. In the main house task (Experiment 3), we found (a) the same speed-accuracy trade-off observed in Experiment 2, (b) substantially longer RTs overall, and (c) no evidence for mental rotation in either group, mirroring Experiment 1. Contrary to our earlier findings on aerial depth perception, expertise in remote sensing did not yield a distinctive recognition strategy for the experiments here. However, experts displayed more diligent tactics in Experiments 2 and 3. We suggest that all participants in Experiment 3 engaged in cognitively challenging feature comparisons across viewpoints, presumably supported by volumetric or surface-connected prototypes of houses as the basis for feature comparisons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Skog et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: