The edge complex: Implicit memory for figure assignment in shape perception

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 727-740

  Peterson, Mary A ^a,c   Enns, James T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944538303     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03193528     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. BAYLIS, G. C., & CALE, E. (2001). The figure has a shape, but the ground does not: Evidence from a priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 633-643.
2. BAYLIS, G. C., & DRIVER, J. (1995). One-sided edge assignment in vision: 1. Figure-ground segmentation and attention to objects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 140-146.
3. BAYLIS, G. C., & DRIVER, J. (2001). Shape coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal but not figure-ground reversal. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 937-942.
4. BELLER, H. K. (1971). Priming: Effects of advance information on matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 176-182.
5. BELONGIE, S., MALIK, J., & PUZICHA, J. (2002). Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 24, 509-521.
6. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
7. DOSHER, B. A., SPERLING, G., & WURST, S. A. (1986). Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure. Vision Research, 26, 973-990.
8. 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.
9. DRIVER, J., & BAYLIS, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 248-306.
10. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2000). (Coarse coding of shape fragments) + (retinotopy) = representation of structure. Spatial Vision, 13, 255-264.
11. EDELMAN, S., & INTRATOR, N. (2003) Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations. Cognitive Science, 27, 73-109.
12. EGETH, H. E., & YANTIS, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269-297.
13. FORSTER, K. I., & FORSTER, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.
14. GRILL-SPECTOR, K., KUSHNIR, T., HENDLER, T., EDELMAN, S., ITZCHAK, Y., & MALACH, R. (1998). A sequence of object-processing stages revealed by fMRI in the human occipital lobe. Human Brain Mapping, 6, 316-328.
15. GRISON, S., & STRAYER, D. L. (2002). Negative priming and perceptual fluency: More than what meets the eye. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1063-1071.
16. HOCHBERG, J. (1971). Perception I: Color and shape. In J. W. Kling & L. A. Riggs (Eds.), Woodworth and Schlossberg s experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 395-474). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
17. HOFFMAN, D. D., & SINGH, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
18. JACOBY, L. L. (1983). Perceptual enhancement: Persistent effects of an experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9, 21-38.
19. KANIZSA, G., & GERBINO, W. (1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In M. Henle (Ed.), Vision and artifact (pp. 25-32). New York: Springer-Verlag.
20. KIENKER, P. K., SEJNOWSKI, T. J., HINTON, G. E., & SCHUMACHER, L. E. (1986). Separating figure from ground with a parallel network. Perception, 15, 197-216.
21. KOURTZI, Z., & KANWISHER, N. (2001). Representation of perceived object shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science, 293, 1506-1509.
22. LERNER, Y., HENDLER, T., BEN-BASHAT, D., HAREL, M., & MALACH, R. (2001). A hierarchical axis of object processing stages in the human visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 287-297.
23. LIU, T., & COOPER, L. A. (2001). The influence of task requirements on priming in object decision and matching. Memory & Cognition, 29, 874-882.
24. PALMER, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. PERRETT, D. I., & ORAM, M. W. (1998). Visual recognition based on temporal cortex cells: Viewer-centred processing of pattern configuration. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, 53, 518-541.
26. PETERSON, M. A. (1999). Organization, segregation and object recognition. Intellectica, 28, 37-51.
27. PETERSON, M. A. (2000). Object perception. In E. B. Goldstein (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of perception (pp. 168-203). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28. PETERSON, M. A. (2003). 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.
29. 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.
30. PETERSON, M. A., & GIBSON, B. S. (1994). Must shape recognition follow figure-ground organization? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259.
31. PETERSON, M. A., & KIM, J. H. (2001). On what is bound in figures and grounds. Visual Cognition, 8, 329-348.
32. PETERSON, M. A., & LAMPIGNANO, D. W. (2003). Implicit memory for novel figure-ground displays includes a history of cross-border competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 808-822.
33. PETERSON, M. A., & SKOW-GRANT, E. (2003). Memory and learning in figure-ground perception. In D. Irwin & B. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognitive vision (Vol. 42, pp. 1-34). San Diego: Academic Press.
34. POMERANTZ, J. R., & KUBOVY, M. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization: Simplicity and likelihood principles. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 1-46). Oxford: Wiley.
35. ROSCH, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
36. RUBIN, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds. and Trans.), Readings in perception (pp. 35-101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published 1915)
37. SCARBOROUGH, D. L., CORTESE, C., & SCARBOROUGH, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 1-17.
38. SEJNOWSKI, T. J., & HINTON, G. E. (1987). Separating figure from ground with a Boltzmann machine. In M. Arbib & A. Hanson (Eds.), Vision, brain, and cooperative computation (pp. 703-724). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. SEKULER, A. B., & PALMER, S. E. (1992). Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 95-111.
40. STRAYER, D. L., & GRISON, S. (1999). Negative identity priming is contingent on stimulus repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 24-38.
41. TANAKA, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
42. TREISMAN, A., & DESCHEPPER, B. (1996). Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 15-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. ULLMAN, S., VIDAL-NAQUET, M., & SALI, E. (2002). Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 682-687.
44. VECERA, S. P., & O'REILLY, R. C. (1998). Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: An interactive account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 441-462.
45. VECERA, S. P., & O'REILLY, R. C. (2000). Graded effects in hierarchical figure-ground organization: Reply to Peterson (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1221-1231.