Implicit Memory for Novel Figure-Ground Displays Includes a History of Cross-Border Competition

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 808-822

  Peterson, Mary A ^a   Lampignano, Daniel W ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEMORY; REVIEW;

COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; CUES; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY;

EID: 0242391015     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.4.808     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1995). 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.
2. DeSchepper, B., & Treisman, A. (1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 27-47.
3. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 248-306.
4. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.
5. Gillam, B. (1975). The evidence for "closure" in perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 521-524.
6. Grison, S., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). Negative priming and perceptual fluency: More than what meets the eye. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1063-1071.
7. Hochberg, J. (1962). The psychophysics of pictorial perception. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 10, 22-54.
8. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
9. Jacoby, L. L. (1983), Perceptual enhancement: Persistent effects of an experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 21-38.
10. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306-340.
11. Kim, J. H., & Peterson, M. A. (2001). Context modulates the strength of the Gestalt configural cue of convexity [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 390.
12. Kim, J. H., & Peterson, M. A. (2002). Contextual modulation of the strength of Gestalt configural cues [Abstract], Journal of Vision, 2(7), 481.
13. Kim, J. H., & Peterson, M. A. (2003). Contextual modulation of figure-ground perception: The Gestalt configural cue of convexity. Manuscript in preparation.
14. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load is a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.
15. Leyton, M. (1987). Symmetry-curvature duality. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 38, 327-341.
16. Lowe, D. G. (1979). Strategies, context, and the mechanisms of response inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 382-389.
17. Luola, F., Kourtzi, Z., & Shiffrar, M. (2000). Surface segmentation cues influence negative priming for novel and familiar shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 929-944.
18. Milliken, B., Joordens, S., Merikle, P. M., & Seiffert, A. E. (1998). Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. Psychological Review, 105, 203-229.
19. Moore, C. M. (1994). Negative priming depends on probe trial conflict: Where has all the inhibition gone? Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 133-147.
20. Mozer, M. C., Zemel, R. S., Behrmann, M., & Williams, C. K. I. (1992). Learning to segment images using dynamic feature binding. Neural Computation, 4, 650-665.
21. Nakayama, K., Shimojo, S., & Silverman, G. H. (1989). Stereoscopic depth: Its relation to image segmentation, grouping, and the recognition of occluded objects. Perception, 18, 55-68.
22. Neill, W. T., & Joordens, S. (2002). Negative priming and multiple repetition: A reply to Grison and Strayer (2001). Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 855-860.
23. Neill, W. T., & Mathis, K. M. (1998). Transfer-inappropriate processing: Negative priming and related phenomena. In D. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation; Advances in research and theory (pp. 1-44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24. Neill, W. T., & Valdes, L. A. (1996). Facilitatory and inhibitory aspects of attention. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 77-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25. Perrett, D. I., & Oram, M. W. (1998). Visual recognition based on temporal cortex cells: Viewer-centered processing of pattern configuration. Zeitschrift für naturforschung, 53, 518-541.
26. Peterson, M. A. (1994). Shape recognition can and does occur before figure-ground organization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 105-111.
27. Peterson, M. A. (1995). The relationship between depth segregation and object recognition: Old assumptions, new findings, and a new approach to object recognition. Unpublished manuscript.
28. Peterson, M. A. (1999). On the role of meaning in organization. Intellectica, 28, 37-51.
29. Peterson, M. A. (2000). Object perception. In E. B. Goldstein (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of perception (pp. 168-203). Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
30. Peterson, M. A. (2003a). On figures, grounds, and varieties of amodal surface completion. In R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, & C. Olson (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 87-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Peterson, M. A. (2003b). Overlapping partial configurations in object Memory: An alternative solution to classic problems in perception and recognition. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 269-294). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Peterson, M. A., de Gelder, B., Rapcsak, S. Z., Gerhardstein, P. C., & Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C. (2000). Object memory effects on figure assignment: Conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient. Vision Research, 40, 1549-1567.
33. Peterson, M. A., & Enns, J. E. (2003). The edge complex: Memory for an edge includes figure and ground assignment. Manuscript in preparation.
34. Peterson, M. A., Enns, J. E., & Woods, S. (2002). Memory for an edge includes figure and ground assignment [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 2(7), 497.
35. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1993). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional display. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 383-429.
36. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994a). Must shape recognition follow figure-ground organization? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259.
37. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994b). Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and. subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 551-564.
38. Peterson, M. A., Harvey, E. H., and Weidenbacher, H. L. (1991). Shape recognition inputs to figure-ground organization: Which route counts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1075-1089.
39. Peterson, M. A., & Hector, J. E. (1996, November). Evidence for the piecemeal nature of pre-depth object recognition processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.
40. Peterson, M. A., & Kim, J. H. (2001). On what is bound in figures and grounds. Visual Cognition, 8, 329-348.
41. Peterson, M. A., & Skow-Grant, E. (2003). Memory and learning in figure-ground perception, In D. Irwin & B. Ross (Eds.), Cognitive vision: Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 42, pp. 1-34). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019-1025.
43. Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds. and Trans.) Readings in perception (pp. 35-101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published 1915)
44. Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 1-17.
45. Scarborough, D. L., Gerard, L., & Cortese, C. (1979). Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality. Memory & Cognition, 7, 3-12.
46. Skow-Grant, E., Lampignano, D. W., Kim, J. H., & Peterson, M. A. (2002). Tests of a competitive interactive model of figure assignment [Abstract] Journal of Vision, 2(7), 472.
47. Stevens, K. A., & Brookes, A. (1988). The concave cusp as determiner of figure-ground. Perception, 17, 35-42.
48. Strayer, D. L., & Grison, S. (1999). Negative identity priming is contingent on stimulus repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 24-38.
49. Tanaka, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
50. Treisman, A., & DeSchepper, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. In T. Inui and J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Ullman, S., & Sali, E. (2000). Object classification using fragment-based representation. In S.-W. Lee, H. H. Bülthoff, & T. Poggio (Eds.), Biologically motivated computer vision; First IEEE International Workshop, BMCV 2000, Seoul, Korea, May 2000, proceedings: Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1811, pp. 73-87). Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag.