What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape

Journal of Vision

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 313-321

  Cohen, Elias H ^a   Barenholtz, Elan ^b   Singh, Manish ^a   Feldman, Jacob ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Change blindness; Contour; Convexity; Curvature; Shape representation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSICAL PARAMETERS; SENSITIVITY AND SENSIBILITY; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL SYSTEM;

FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; SIGNAL DETECTION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 27244455857     PISSN: 15347362     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/5.4.3     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183-193.
2. Attneave, F. (1971). Multistability in perception. Scientific American, 225(6), 61-71.
3. Barenholtz, E., Cohen, E. H., Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2003). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition, 89(1), 1-9.
4. Barenholtz, E., & Feldman, J. (2003). Visual comparisons within and between object parts: Evidence for a single-part superiority effect. Vision Research, 43(15), 1655-1666.
5. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1994). Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition in single visual objects. Visual Cognition, 1, 377-400.
6. 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(6), 1323-1342.
7. 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, 140-446.
8. Bertamini, M. (2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception, 30, 1295-1310.
9. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
10. Blum, H. (1973). Biological shape and visual science (Part I). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 38, 205-287.
11. Braunstein, M. L., Hoffman, D. D., & Saidpour, A. (1989). Parts of visual objects: An experimental test of the minima rule. Perception, 18, 817-826.
12. De Winter, J., & Wagemans, J. (2004) Contour-based object identification and segmentation: Stimuli, norms and data, and software tools. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 604-624.
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. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 248-306.
15. Feldman, J., & Richards, W. A. (1998). Mapping the mental space of rectangles. Perception, 27, 119-1202.
16. Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112(1), 243-252.
17. Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (2003). Eye movements and visual memory: Detecting changes to saccade targets in scenes. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 58-71.
18. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
19. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
20. Hulleman, J., te Winkel, W., & Boselie, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 162-174.
21. Humphreys, G., & Müller, H. (2000). A search asymmetry reversed by figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 11(3), 196-201.
22. Keane, S., Hayward, W. G., & Burke, D. (2003). Detection of three types of changes to novel objects. Visual Cognition, 10, 101-127.
23. Kimia, B. B., Tannenbaum, A. R., & Zucker, S. W. (1995). Shapes, shocks, and deformations. 1. The components of two-dimensional shape and the reaction-diffusion space. International Journal of Computer Vision, 15, 189-224.
24. Koenderink, J., & Van Doorn, A. (1982). The shape of smooth objects and the way contours end. Perception, 11, 129-137.
25. Liu, Z., Jacobs, D., & Basri, R. (1999). The role of convexity in perceptual completion: Beyond good continuation. Vision Research, 39, 4244-4257.
26. Lamote, C., & Wagemans, J. (1999). Rapid integration of contour fragments: From simple filling-in to parts-based shape description. Visual Cognition, 6(3/4), 345-361.
27. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
28. Norman, J. F., Phillips, F., & Ross, H. E. (2001). Information concentration along the boundary contours of naturally shaped solid objects. Perception, 30, 1285-1294.
29. Pasupathy, A., & Connor, C. E. (1999). Responses to contour features in macaque area V4. Journal of Neurophysiology, 82, 2490-2502.
30. Pasupathy, A., & Connor, C. E. (2001). Shape representation in area v4: Position-specific tuning for boundary conformation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 2505-2519.
31. Rensink, R., O'Regan, J., & Clark, J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368-373.
32. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 261-267.
33. Singh, M., & Fulvio, J. (2005). Visual extrapolation of contour geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 102(3), 939-944.
34. Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D. (1998). Part boundaries alter the perception of transparency. Psychological Science, 9(5), 636-660.
35. Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D. (2001). Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition. In T. Shipley & P. Kellman (Eds.), From fragments to objects: Segmentation and grouping in vision. Advances in Psychology Vol. 130 (pp. 401-459). New York: Elsevier.
36. Vecera, S. P., Behrmann, M., & Filapek, J. C. (2001). Attending to the parts of a single object: Part-based selection of limitations. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(2), 308-321.
37. Vecera, S. P., Behrmann, M., & McGoldrick, J. (2000). Selective attention to the parts of an object. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7(2), 301-308.
38. Watson, S. E., & Kramer, A. F. (1999). Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(1), 31-49.
39. Watt, R. J., & Andrews, D. P. (1982). Contour curvature analysis: Hyperacuities in the discrimination of detailed shape. Vision Research, 22, 449-460.
40. Wilson, H. R. (1985). Discrimination of contour curvature: Data and theory. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2(7), 1191-1199.
41. Wilson, H. R., Richards, W. A. (1989). Mechanisms of contour curvature discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 6(1), 106-115.
42. Wolfe, J. M., & Bennett, S. C. (1997). Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Research, 37, 25-43.
43. Wolfe, J. M., Yee, A., & Friedman-Hill, S. (1992). Curvature is a basic feature for visual search tasks. Perception, 21(1), 465-480.
44. Xu, Y., & Singh, M. (2002). Early computation of part structure: Evidence from visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1039-1054.