Rapid integration of contour fragments: From simple filling-in to parts-based shape description

Visual Cognition

Volumn 6, Issue 3-4, 1999, Pages 345-361

  Lamote, Christian ^a   Wagemans, Johan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000789276     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/135062899395019     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Akima, H. (1970). A new method of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 17, 589-602.
2. Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183-193.
3. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
4. Biederman, I. (1988). Aspects and extensions of a theory of human image understanding. In Z. W. Pylyshyn (Ed.), Computational processes in human vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 370-428). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5. Biederman, I., & Cooper, E.E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393-419.
6. Baylis, G.C., & Driver, J. (1994). Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition within visual shapes. Visual Cognition, 1, 377-400.
7. Baylis, G.C., & Driver, J. (1995a). Obligatory edge assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1323-1342.
8. Baylis, G.C., & Driver, J. (1995b). One-sided edge assignment in vision: 1. Figure-ground segmentation and attention to objects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 140-146.
9. Boucart, M. (1996). La reconnaissance des objets. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
10. Boucart, M., Delord, S., & Giersch, A. (1994). The computation of contour information in complex objects. Perception, 23, 399-409.
11. Boucart, M., Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1995). Three-dimensional features facilitate object recognition. Visual Cognition, 2, 451-478.
12. Braunstein, M.L., Hoffman, D.D., & Saidpour, A. (1989). Parts of visual objects: An experimental test of the minima rule. Perception, 18, 817-826.
13. Driver, J., & Baylis, G.C. (1995). One-sided edge-assignment in vision: 2. Part decomposition, shape description, and attention to objects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 201-206.
14. Eckhorn, R. (this issue). Neural mechanisms of visual features binding investigated with microelectrodes and models. Visual Cognition, 6, 231-265.
15. Hoffman, D.D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
16. Jolicoeur, P., & Ingleton, M. (1991). Size invariance in curve tracing. Memory and Cognition, 19, 21-36.
17. Jolicoeur, P., Ullman, S., & MacKay, M. (1986). Curve tracing: Apossible basic operation in the perception of spatial relations. Memory and Cognition, 14, 129-140.
18. Jolicoeur, P., Ullman, S., & MacKay, M. (1991). Visual curve tracing properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 997-1022.
19. Lamote, C., Wagemans, J., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1995). On the role of curvature singularities in mental rotation (Psych. Rep. No. 179). Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
20. Leyton, M. (1988). A process-grammar for shape. Artificial Intelligence, 34, 213-247.
21. Leyton, M. (1989). Inferring causal history from shapes. Cognitive Science, 13, 357-387.
22. Lowe, D.G. (1985). Perceptual organization and visual recognition (PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1985). Boston, MA Kluwer.
23. Moons, T., Pauwels, E.J., Van Gool, L.J., & Oosterlinck, A. (1995). Foundations of semi-differential invariants. International Journal of Computer Vision, 14, 25-47.
24. Pauwels, E.J., Moons, T., Van Gool, L.J., Kempenaers, P., & Oosterlinck, A. (1995). Recognition of planar shapes under affine distortion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 14, 49-65.
25. Peterhans, E., & von der Heydt, R. (1991). Subjective contoursbridging the gap between psychophysics and physiology. Trends in Neuroscience, 14, 112-119.
26. Peterson, M.A. (1994). Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 05-111.
27. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B.S. (1993). Shape recognition inputs to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional displays. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 383-429.
28. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B.S. (1994a). Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259.
29. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B.S. (1994b). Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 551-564.
30. Peterson, M.A., Harvey, E.M., & Weidenbacher, H.J. (1991). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal : Which route counts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1075-1089.
31. Resnikoff, H. (1985). The illusion of reality: Topics in information science. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. Sanocki, T. (this issue). Constructing structural descriptions. Visual Cognition, 6, 299-318.
33. Shannon, C.E, & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
34. Snodgrass, J.G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Perceptual identification thresholds for 150 fragmented pictures from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart picture set. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 3-16.
35. Snodgrass, J.G., & Feenan, K. (1990). Priming effects in picture fragment completion: Support for the perceptual closure hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 276-296.
36. Snodgrass, J.G., & Hirshman, E. (1994). Dissociations among implicit and explicit memory tasks: The role of stimulus similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 20, 105-160.
37. Snodgrass, J.G, & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
38. Ullman, S. (1989). Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition. Cognition, 2, 193-254.
39. Waeytens, K., Hanoulle, I., Wagemans, J., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1994). Human representation of closed contours. In F. Dillen, I. Van de Woestijne, & L. Verstraelen (Eds.), Geometry and topology of submanifolds, VI (pp. 298-306). Singapore: World Scientific.
40. Wagemans, J., Hanoulle, I., Waeytens, K., & d'Ydewalle, G. (May, 1994). Are curvature singularities sufficient to represent shape? Annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).
41. Sarasota, Florida [From Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 1994, 55(4), 1918, Abstract No. 3065.]
42. Wagemans, J., Notebaert, W., & Boucart, M. (1998). Lorazepam but not diazepam impairs identification of pictures on the basis of specific contour fragments. Psychopharmacology, 138, 326-333.