Visual search for a circular region perceived as a figure versus as a hole: Evidence of the importance of part structure

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 776-791

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   Lawson, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748068330     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193701     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ANDERSEN, G. J. (1990). Focused attention in three-dimensional space. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 112-120.
2. ARNOTT, S. R., & SHEDDEN, J. M. (2000). Attention switching in depth using random-dot autostereograms: Attention gradient asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1459-1473.
3. BARENHOLTZ, E., COHEN, E. H., FELDMAN, J., & SINGH, M. (2003). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition, 89, 1-9.
4. BERTAMINI, M. (2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception, 30, 1295-1310.
5. BERTAMINI, M., & CROUCHER, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87, 33-54.
6. BERTAMINI, M., & FARRANT, T. (2005). Detection of change in shape and its relation to part structure. Acta Psychologica 120, 35-54.
7. BERTAMINI, M., FRIEDENBERG, J., & ARGYLE, L. (2002). No within-object advantage for detection of rotation. Acta Psychologica, 111, 59-81.
8. BERTAMINI, M., & LAWSON, R. (2005). Testing inbuilt assumptions about convexity using a depth discrimination task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9. BERTAMNI, M., & MOSCA, F. (2004). Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception, 33, 35-48.
10. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
11. CHEN, L. (2001). Perceptual organization: To reverse back the inverted (upside-down) question of feature binding. Visual Cognition, 8, 287-303.
12. COHEN, E. H., BARENHOLTZ, E., SINOH, M., & FELDMAN, J. (2005). What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. Journal of Vision, 5, 313-321.
13. DOWNING, C. J., & PINKER, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 171-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. ELDER, J., & ZUCKER, S. (1993). The effect of contour closure on the rapid discrimination of two-dimensional shapes. Vision Research, 33, 981-991.
15. ELDER, J., & ZUCKER, S. (1998). Evidence for boundary-specific grouping. Vision Research, 38, 143-152.
16. FANTONI, C., BERTAMINI, M., & GERBINO, W. (2005). Contour curvature polarity and surface interpolation. Vision Research, 45, 1047-1062.
17. FELDMAN, J., & SINGH, M. (2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112, 243-252.
18. GIBSON, B. S. (1994). Visual attention and objects: One versus two or convex versus concave? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 203-207.
19. HE, Z. J., & NAKAYAMA, K. (1992). Surfaces versus features in visual search. Nature, 359, 231-233.
20. HECHT, H., & BADER, H. (1998). Perceiving topological structure of 2-D patterns. Acta Psychologica, 99, 255-292.
21. HOFFMAN, D. D., & RICHARDS, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
22. HULLEMAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2005). Differences between searching among objects and searching among holes. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 469-482.
23. HULLEMAN, J., TE WINKEL, W., & BOSELIE, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 162-174.
24. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & MÜLLER, H. (2000). A search asymmetry reversed by figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 11, 196-201.
25. KANIZSA, G. (1979). Organization in vision. New York: Praeger.
26. 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.
27. KAWABE, T., & MIURA, K. (2004). Perceptual grouping in shape from shading. Perception, 33, 601-614.
28. KOENDERINK, J. J. (1984). What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape? Perception, 13, 321-330.
29. MARR, D., & NISHIHARA, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 200, 269-294.
30. NAKAYAMA, K., & SHIMOJO, S. (1992). Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces. Science, 257, 1357-1363.
31. NELSON, R., & PALMER, S. E. (2001). Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions. Perception, 30, 1213-1226.
32. O'TOOLE, A. J., & WALKER, C. L. (1997). On the preattentive accessibility of stereoscopic disparity: Evidence from visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 202-218.
33. PALMER, S. E. (1999). Vision science; Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. PELLI, D. G. (1997). The Video Toolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
35. RICHARDS, W., KOENDERINK, J. J., & HOFFMAN, D. D. (1985). Inferring 3D shapes from 2D codons (A1 Memo No. 840). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
36. ROCK, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. ROSENHOLTZ, R. (2001). Search asymmetries? What search asymmetries? Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 476-489.
38. RUBIN, E. (1921). Visuell wahrgenommene Figuren. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
39. SINGH, M., & HOFFMAN, D. D. (2001). Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition. In T. F. Shipley & P. J. Kellman (Eds.), From fragments to objects: Grouping and segmentation in vision (Advances in Psychology, Vol. 130, pp. 401-459). New York: Elsevier.
40. TREISMAN, A., & SOUTHER, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285-310.