Relationship between uniform connectedness and proximity in perceptual grouping

Science in China, Series C: Life Sciences

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 113-126

  Han, Shihui ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^b  

^a PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Perceptual grouping; Proximity; Segmentation; Similarity; Uniform connectedness

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; HUMAN ENGINEERING; OBJECT RECOGNITION;

PERCEPTUAL GROUPING; PROXIMITY; SEGMENTATION; SIMILARITY; UNIFORM CONNECTEDNESS;

VISION;

EID: 33646756517     PISSN: 10069305     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1360/03yc9013     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Marr, D., Vision, San Franciso: W. H. Freeman, 1982.
2. Kohler, W., An aspect of Gestalt psychology, in Psychologies of 1925 (ed. Murchison, C.), Worcester, MA: Clark University Press, 1928, 163-195.
3. Wertheimer, M., Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt: II. Psychologische Forshung, 1923, 4: 301-350.
4. Palmer, S., Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 436-447.
5. Palmer, S., Rock, I., Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1994, 1: 29-55.
6. Quinlan, P. T., Wilton, R. N., Grouping by proximity or similarity? Competition between the Gestalt principles in vision, Perception, 1998, 27: 417-430.
7. Ben-Av, M. B., Sagi, D., Perceptual grouping by similarity and proximity: Experimental results can be predicted by intensity autocorrelations, Vision Research, 1995, 35: 853-866.
8. Man, S., Humphreys, G. W., Chen, L., Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping, Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61: 661-674.
9. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Interactions between perceptual organization based on Gestalt laws and those based on hierarchical processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61: 1287-1298.
10. Han, S., Song, Y., Ding, Y. et al., Neural substrates for visual perceptual grouping in human, Psychophysiology, 2001, 38: 926-935.
11. Kimchi, R., Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1998, 24: 1105-1118.
12. Navon, D., Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9: 353-383.
13. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Chen, L., Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1999b, 25: 1411-1432.
14. Kimchi, R., The perceptual organization of visual objects: A microgenetic analysis, Vision Research, 200, 40: 1333-1347.
15. Grice, G. R., Canham, L., Boroughs, J. M., Forest before trees? It depends where you look, Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33: 121-128.
16. Pomerantz, J. R., Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1983, 112: 512-540.
17. Han, S., He, X., Yund, E. W. et al., Attentional selection in the processing of hierarchical patterns: An ERP study, Biological Psychology, 2001, 5: 113-130.
18. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 2002, 55: 5-21.
19. Chun, M. M., Wolfe, J. M., Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 1996, 30: 39-78.
20. Humphreys, G. W., Müller, H. J., Search via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search, Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 43-110.
21. Duncan, J., Humphreys, G. W., Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 1989, 96: 433-458.
22. Mack, A., Tang, B., Tuma, R. et al., Perceptual organization and attention. Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 475-501.
23. Vecera, S. P., Farah, M. J., Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? Perception & Psychophysics, 1997, 59: 1280-1296.
24. Kramer, A., Watson, S., Object-based visual selection and the principle of uniform connectedness, in Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention (eds. Kramer, A., Coles, M., Logan, G), Washington, D. C.: APA Press, 1996, 395-414.
25. Watson, S. E., Kramer, A. F., Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization. Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61: 31-49.
26. Van Lier, R., Wagemans, J., Effects of physical connectivity on the representational unity of multi-part-configurations, Cognition, 1998, 69: 1-9.
27. Saiki, J., Hummel, J. E., Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1998, 24: 227-251.
28. Ginsburg, A. P., Spatial filtering and visual form perception, in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (eds. Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J. P.), New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, Chap. 34: 1-71.
29. Peterson, M. A., Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1994, 3: 105-111.
30. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., Burkell, J., The cost of visual filtering, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1983, 9: 510-522.
31. Enns, J. T., Kingstone, A., Access to global and local properties in visual search for compound stimuli. Psychological Science, 1995, 6: 283-291.