Concavities count for less in symmetry perception

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1212-1217

  Hulleman, Johan ^a   Olivers, Christian N L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38149079768     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193115     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. BARENHOLTZ, E., COHEN, E. H., FELDMAN, J., & SINGH, M. (2003). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition, 89, 1-9.
2. BARLOW, H. B., & REEVES, B. C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research, 19, 783-793.
3. BAYLIS, G. C., & DRIVER, J. (1994). Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition within single visual shapes. Visual Cognition, 1, 377-400.
4. BAYLIS, G. C., & DRIVER, J. (1995). Obligatory edge assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1323-1342.
5. BAYLIS, G. C., & DRIVER, J. (2001). Perception of symmetry and repetition within and across visual shapes: Part-descriptions and objectbased attention. Visual Cognition, 8, 163-196.
6. BERTAMINI, M. (2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception, 30, 1295-1310.
7. BERTAMINI, M., & FARRANT, T. (2005). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for changes in part structure. Acta Psychologica, 120, 35-54.
8. BURBECK, C. A, & PIZER, S. M. (1995). Object representation by cores: Identifying and representing primitive spatial regions. Vision Research, 35, 1917-1930.
9. COHEN, E. H., BARENHOLTZ, E., SINGH, M., & FELDMAN, J. (2005). What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. Journal of Vision, 5, 313-321.
10. 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.
11. HOFFMAN, D. D., & RICHARDS, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
12. HOFFMAN, D. D., & SINGH, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
13. HULLEMAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2004). Is there an assignment of top and bottom during symmetry perception? Perception, 33, 615-620.
14. HULLEMAN, J., TE WINKEL, W., & BOSELIE, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception A Psychophysics, 62, 162-174.
15. JULESZ, B. (1971). Foundations of Cyclopean perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. KOENDERINK, J. J., & VAN DOORN, A. J. (1982). The shape of smooth objects and the way contours end. Perception, 11, 129-137.
17. OLIVERS, C. N. L., & VAN DER HELM, P. A. (1998). Symmetry and selective attention: A dissociation between effortless perception and serial search. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1101-1116.
18. PALMER, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. PALMER, S. E., & HEMENWAY, K. (1978). Orientation and symmetry: Effects of multiple, rotational, and near symmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 4, 691-702.
20. WAGEMANS, J. (1995). Detection of visual symmetries. Spatial Vision, 9, 9-32.