Detection of convexity and concavity in context

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 775-789

  Bertamini, Marco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Object representation; Shape; Signal detection; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; VISION;

ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL CLOSURE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISION DISPARITY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 58149138943     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.775     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Attneave F. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review 1954, 61:183-193.
2. Barenholtz E., Cohen E.H., Feldman J., Singh M. Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition 2003, 89:1-9.
3. Barenholtz E., Feldman J. Visual comparisons within and between object parts: Evidence for a single-part superiority effect. Vision Research 2003, 43:1655-1666.
4. Bertamini M. The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception 2001, 30:1295-1310.
5. Bertamini M. Who owns the contour of a hole?. Perception 2006, 35:883-894.
6. Bertamini M., Croucher C.J. The shape of holes. Cognition 2003, 87(1):33-54.
7. Bertamini M., Farrant T. Detection of change in shape: An advantage for changes in part structure. Acta Psychologica 2005, 120:35-54.
8. Bertamini M., Farrant T. The perceived structural shape of thin (wire-like) objects is different from that of silhouettes. Perception 2006, 35:1265-1288.
9. Bertamini M., Hulleman J. Amodal completion and visual holes (static and moving). Acta Psychologica 2006, 123:55-72.
10. Bertamini M., Lawson R. Visual search for a figure among holes and for a hole among figures. Perception & Psychophysics 2006, 58:776-791.
11. Bertamini, M., & Lawson, R. (in press). Rapid figure-ground responses to stereograms reveal an advantage for a convex foreground. Perception.
12. Bertamini M., Mosca F. Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception 2004, 33:35-48.
13. Braunstein M.L., Hoffman D.D., Saidpour A. Parts of visual objects: An experimental test of the minima rule. Perception 1989, 18:817-826.
14. Brincat S., Connor C. Dynamic shape synthesis in posterior inferotemporal cortex. Neuron 2006, 49:17-24.
15. Burge J., Peterson M.A., Palmer S.E. Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception. Journal of Vision 2005, 5:534-542.
16. Cohen E.H., Barenholtz E., Singh M., Feldman J. What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. Journal of Vision 2005, 5:313-321.
17. de Winter J., Wagemans J. Segmentation of object outlines into parts: From a large-scale study to an integrative framework. Cognition 2005, 99:275-325.
18. Foster D.H., Gilson S.J. Recognizing novel three-dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 2002, 269:1939-1947.
19. Hoffman D.D., Richards W. Parts of recognition. Cognition 1984, 18:65-96.
20. Hoffman D.D., Singh M. Salience of visual parts. Cognition 1997, 63:29-78.
21. Hulleman J., Olivers C.N.L. Concavities count for less in symmetry perception. Psychological Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:1212-1217.
22. Hulleman J., te Winkel W., Boselie F. Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics 2000, 62:162-174.
23. Humphreys G., Müller H. A search asymmetry reversed by figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science 2000, 11:196-201.
24. Keane S.K., Hayward W.G., Burke D. Detection of three types of changes to novel objects. Visual Cognition 2003, 10:101-127.
25. Koenderink J. What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape?. Perception 1984, 13:321-330.
26. Koenderink J. Solid shape 1990, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Kourtzi Z., Kanwisher N. Representation of perceived object shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science 2001, August, 293:1506-1509.
28. Marr D., Nishihara H.K. Representation and recognition of spatial-organization of 3-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 1978, 200:269-294.
29. Nelson R., Palmer S.E. Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions. Perception 2001, 30:1213-1226.
30. Pasupathy A., Connor C.E. Population coding of shape in area V4. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5:1332-1338.
31. Phillips W.A. On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics 1974, 16:283-290.
32. Richards W., Koenderink J.J., Hoffman D.D. Inferring three-dimensional shapes from two-dimensional silhouettes. Journal of the Optical Society of America, A 1987, 4:1168-1175.
33. Rosenholtz R. Search asymmetries? What search asymmetries?. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:476-489.
34. Rosin P.L. Shape partitioning by convexity. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A 2000, 30:202-210.
35. Siddiqi K., Kimia B.B., Tannenbaum A., Zucker S.W. On the psychophysics of the shape triangle. Vision Research 2001, 41:1153-1178.
36. Siddiqi K., Tresness K.J., Kimia B.B. Parts of visual form: Psychophysical aspects. Perception 1996, 25:399-424.
37. Singh M., Hoffman D.D. Part boundaries alter the perception of transparency. Psychological Science 1998, 9:370-378.
38. Singh M., Hoffman D.D. Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition. From fragments to objects: Grouping and segmentation in vision 2001, 401-459. Elsevier, Oxford, England. T.F. Shipley, P.J. Kellman (Eds.).
39. Singh M., Seyranian G.D., Hoffman D.D. Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule. Perception & Psychophysics 1999, 61:636-660.
40. Vandekerckhove J., Panis S., Wagemans J. Sign-dependent detectability of change in curvature as an empirical measure of perceptual closure. Perception 2005, 34:174.
41. Vandekerckhove J., Panis S., Wagemans J. The concavity effect is a compound of local and global effects. Perception & Psychophysics 2007, 69:1253-1260.
42. Vecera S.P., Behrmann M., McGoldrick J. Selective attention to the parts of an object. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2000, 7:301-308.
43. Wang X., Burbeck C.A. Scaled medial axis representation: Evidence from position discrimination task. Vision Research 1998, 38:1947-1959.
44. Wolfe J., Bennett S.C. Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Research 1997, 37:25-43.
45. Wolfe J., Horowitz T.S. What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004, 5:1-7.
46. Xu Y., Singh M. Early computation of part structure: Evidence from visual search. Perception & Psychophysics 2002, 64:1039-1054.