Closure of salient regions determines search for a collinear target configuration

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 32-47

  Conci, Markus ^a   Müller, Hermann J ^a   Elliott, Mark A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RECEPTIVE FIELD; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL CLOSURE; PSYCHOPHYSICS;

EID: 34447319977     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194451     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. BUSCH, A., & MÜLLER, H. J. (2004). The Ebbinghaus illusion modulates visual search for size-defined targets: Evidence for preattentive rocessing of apparent object size. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 475-495.
2. CHEN, L. (1982). Topological structure in visual perception. Science, 218, 699-700.
3. CHEN, L. (2005). The topological approach to perceptual organization. Visual Cognition, 12, 553-585.
4. CONCI, M., MÜLLER, H. J., & ELLIOTT, M. A. (2007). The contrasting impacts of global and local object attributes on Kanizsa figure detection. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5. DAVIS, G., & DRIVER, J. (1994). Parallel detection of Kanizsa subjective figures in the human visual system. Nature, 371, 291-293.
6. DESIMONE, R., & DUNCAN, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.
7. DI LOLLO, V., ENNS, J. T., & RENSINK, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
8. DONNELLY, N., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1991). Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 17, 561-570.
9. DONNELLY, N., WEEKES, B., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & ALBON, A. (1998). Processes involved in the computation of a shape description Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1119-1130.
10. DUNCAN, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501-517.
11. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
12. EDELMAN, S. (1998). Representation is representation of similarities. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 449-498.
13. ELDER, J., & ZUCKER, S. (1993). The effect of contour closure on the rapid discrimination of two-dimensional shapes. Vision Research, 33, 981-991.
14. FIELD, D. F., HAYES, A., & HESS, R. F. (1993). Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local "association field." Vision Research, 33, 173-193.
15. FOUND, A., & MÜLLER, H. J. (1997). Local and global orientation in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 941-963.
16. GEGENFURTNER, K. R., BROWN, J. E., & RIEGER, J. (1997). Interpolation processes in the perception of real and illusory contours. Perception, 26, 1445-1458.
17. GEISLER, W. S., & SUPER, B. J. (2000). Perceptual organization of two-dimensional patterns. Psychological Review, 107, 677-708.
18. GRABOWECKY, M., & TREISMAN, A. M. (1989). Attention and fixation in subjective contour perception. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 30, 457.
19. GROSSBERG, S., MINGOLLA, E., & ROSS, W. D. (1997). Visual brain and visual perception: How does the cortex do perceptual grouping? Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 106-111.
20. GURNSEY, R., POIRIER, F. J. A. M., & GASCON, E. (1996). There is no evidence that Kanizsa-type subjective contours can be detected in parallel. Perception, 25, 861-874.
21. HAN, S., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & CHEN, L. (1999a). Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1411-1432.
22. HAN, S., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & CHEN, L. (1999b). Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 661-674.
23. HOCHSTEIN, S., & AHISSAR, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791-804.
24. HUMPHREYS, G. W., QUINLAN, P. T., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1989). Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 258-279.
25. ITTI, L. & KOCH, C. (2003). Computational modelling of visual attention Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 194-203.
26. KANIZSA, G. (1955). Margini quasi-percettivi in campi con stimolazione omogenea. Rivista di Psicologia, 49, 7-30.
27. KELLMAN, T. F., & SHIPLEY, P. J. (1991). A theory of interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 141-221.
28. KOFFKA, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt.
29. KOVÁCS, I., & JULESZ, B. (1993). A closed curve is much more than n incomplete one: Effect of closure in figure-ground segmentation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 7495-7497.
30. MOORE, C. M., & EGETH, H. (1997). Perception without attention: Evidence for grouping under conditions of inattention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 339-352.
31. POMERANTZ, J. R. (2003). Wholes, holes and basic features in vision. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 471-473.
32. POMERANTZ, J. R., SAGER, L. C., & STOEVER, R. J. (1977). Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 422-435.
33. RENSINK, R. A., & ENNS, J. T. (1995). Preemption effects in visual search: Evidence for low-level grouping. Psychological Review, 102, 101-130.
34. ROELFSEMA, P. R., LAMME, V. A. F., SPEKREUSE, H., & BOSCH, H. (2002). Figure-ground segregation in a recurrent network architecture. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 525-537.
35. SHIPLEY, T. F., & KELLMAN, P. J. (1992). Strength of visual interpolation depends on the ratio of physically specified to total edge length. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 97-106.
36. SHIPLEY, T. F., & KELLMAN, P. J. (2003). Boundary completion in illusory contours: Interpolation or extrapolation? Perception, 32, 985-999.
37. STANLEY, D. A., & RUBIN, N. (2003). fMRI activation in response to illusory contours and salient regions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron, 37, 323-331.
38. TREISMAN, A. M., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
39. TREISMAN, A. [M.], & GORMICAN, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15-48.
40. TREISMAN, A. [M.], & PATERSON, R. (1984). Emergent features, attention, and object perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception A Performance, 10, 12-31.
41. TVERSKY, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
42. WANG, D., KRISTJANSSON, A., & NAKAYAMA, K. (2005). Efficient visual search without top-down or bottom-up guidance. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 239-253.
43. WERTHEIMER, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301-350.
44. WOLFE, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33-39.
45. WOLFE, J. M., & HOROWITZ, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1-7.