The shape of holes

Cognition

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 33-54

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   Croucher, Camilla J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contours; Figure ground organization; Holes; Perception of shape

Indexed keywords

ENCODING (SYMBOLS); HOLE MOBILITY; RELATIVITY;

RELATIVE SPEED;

PHOTONS;

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT RELATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; REFLEX; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 0037292483     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00183-X     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Albert M.K. The generic-viewpoint assumption and Bayesian inference. Perception. 29:2000;601-608.
2. Albert M.K. Cue interactions, border ownership and illusory contours. Vision Research. 41:2001;2827-2834.
3. Attneave F. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review. 61:1954;183-193.
4. Attneave F. Multistability in perception. Scientific American. 225:1974;63-71.
5. Bahnsen P. Eine untersuchung über symmetrie und asymmetrie bei visuellen wahrnehmungen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 108:1928;129-154.
6. Baylis G.C., Cale E.M. The figure has a shape, but the ground does not: evidence from a priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27:(3):2001;633-643.
7. Baylis G.C., Driver J. Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 19:1993;451-470.
8. Baylis G.C., Driver J. Obligatory edge assignment in vision: the role of figure and part segregation in symmetry detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 21:1995;1323-1342.
9. Baylis G.C., Driver J. Perception of symmetry and repetition within and across visual shapes: part-descriptions and object-based attention. Visual Cognition. 8:2001;163-196.
10. Baylis G.C., Driver J. Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal. Nature Neuroscience. 4:2001;937-942.
11. Bertamini M. The importance of being convex: an advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception. 30:2001;1295-1310.
12. Bertamini M., Friedenberg J., Argyle L. No within-object advantage for detection of rotational symmetry. Acta Psychologica. 111:2002;59-81.
13. Bertamini, M., & Mosca, F. (2002). Objects and Holes Have Different Perceived Shape Even When They are Congruent, in preparation.
14. Biederman I. Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review. 94:(2):1987;115-147.
15. Bozzi P. Osservazioni su alcuni casi di trasparenza fenomenica realizzabili con figure a tratto. d'Arcais G. Studies in perception: Festschrift for Fabio Metelli. 1975;88-110 Martelli-Giunti, Milan.
16. Bruno N., Bertamini M., Domini F. Amodal completion of partly occluded surfaces: is there a mosaic stage? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23:(5):1997;1412-1426.
17. Casati R., Varzi A.C. Holes and other superficialities. 1994;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
18. Cavedon A. Contorno e disparazione retinica come determinanti della localizzazione in profondità: le condizioni della percezione di un foro (Istituto di Psicologia Report 12). 1980;Università di Padova, Padova.
19. Chen L. Perceptual organisation: to reverse back the inverted (upside-down) question of feature binding. Visual Cognition. 8:(3-5):2001;287-303.
20. Driver J., Baylis G.C. Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology. 31:1996;248-306.
21. Gibson B.S. Visual attention and objects: one versus two or convex versus concave? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 20:(1):1994;203-207.
22. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception. 1979;Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
23. Hecht H., Bader H. Perceiving topological structure of 2-D patterns. Acta Psychologica. 99:1998;255-292.
24. Hoffman D.D. Visual intelligence. 1998;W.W. Norton, New York.
25. Hoffman D.D., Richards W. Parts of recognition. Cognition. 18:1984;65-96.
26. Hoffman D.D., Singh M. Salience of visual parts. Cognition. 63:1997;29-78.
27. Humphreys G., Müller H. A search asymmetry reversed by figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science. 11:2000;196-201.
28. Kanizsa G. Organization in vision. 1979;Praeger, New York.
29. Kanizsa G., Gerbino W. Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. Henle M. Vision and artifact. 1976;25-32 Springer, New York.
30. Koenderink J.J. What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape? Perception. 13:1984;321-330.
31. Koenderink J.J. Solid shape. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
32. Koffka K. Principles of gestalt psychology. 1935;Harcourt Brace, New York.
33. Kourtzi Z., Kanwisher N. Representation of perceived object shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science. 293:2001;1506-1509.
34. Lappin J.S., Craft W.D. Foundations of spatial vision: from retinal images to perceived shapes. Psychological Review. 107:2000;6-38.
35. Lewis D., Lewis S. Holes. Lewis D. Philosophical papers. 1983;3-9 Oxford University Press, New York.
36. Liu Z., Jacobs D.W., Basri R. The role of convexity in perceptual completion: beyond good continuation. Vision Research. 39:1999;4244-4257.
37. Loftus G., Masson M. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1:1994;476-490.
38. Marr D., Nishihara H. Representation and recognition of the spatial organisation of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 200:1978;269-294.
39. Nakayama K., He Z.J., Shimojo S. Visual surface representation: a critical link between lower-level and higher level vision. Kosslyn S.M., Osherson D.N. Visual cognition. An invitation to cognitive science. 1995;1-70 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Nakayama K., Shimojo S. Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces. Science. 257:1992;1357-1363.
41. Nelson R., Palmer S.E. Of holes and wholes: the perception of surrounded regions. Perception. 30:2001;1213-1226.
42. Norman J.F., Phillips F., Ross H.E. Information concentration along the boundary contours of naturally shaped solid objects. Perception. 30:2001;1285-1294.
43. Palmer S.E. Vision science: photons to phenomenology. 1999;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
44. Palmer S., Rock I. Rethinking perceptual organization: the role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1:(1):1994;29-55.
45. Pelli D.G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision. 10:1997;437-442.
46. Peterson M.A., de Gelder B., Rapcsak S.Z., Gerhardstein P.C., Bachoud-Lévi A.-C. Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient. Vision Research. 40:2000;1549-1567.
47. Peterson M.A., Kim J.H. On what is bound in figures and grounds. Visual Cognition. 8:2001;329-348.
48. Rock I. The logic of perception. 1983;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
49. Rubin E. Visuell Wahrgenommene Figuren. 1921;Glydenalske Boghandel, Kobenhaven.
50. Singh M., Seyranian G.D., Hoffman D.D. Parsing silhouettes: the short-cut rule. Perception & Psychophysics. 61:1999;636-660.
51. ter Haar Romeny B.M., Florack L.M.J. Front-end vision: a multiscale geometry engine. Lectures Notes in Computer Science. 1811:2000;297-307.
52. Tsal Y., Lamy D., Ilan C. The two-object cost is a space-based phenomenon. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society. 5:2000;33.
53. Ulrich R., Miller J. Information processing models generating lognormally distributed reaction times. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 37:(4):1993;513-525.