Globally inconsistent figure/ground relations induced by a negative part

Journal of Vision

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1-13

  Kim, Sung Ho ^a   Feldman, Jacob ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Border ownership; Contour curvature; Figure ground; Negative parts; Surface representation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; RECEPTIVE FIELD; VISION;

CUES; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349094491     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/9.10.8     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Attneave, F. (1971). Multistability in perception. Scientific American, 225, 61-71.
2. Bahnsen, P. (1928). Eine Untersuchungüber Symmetrie und Asymmetrie bei visuellen Wahrnehmungen. Zeitschriftfür Psychologie, 108, 129-154.
3. Barenholtz, E., & Feldman, J. (2006). Determination of visual figure and ground in dynamically deforming shapes. Cognition, 101, 530-544.
4. Barenholtz, E., & Tarr, M. J. (2009). Figure-ground assignment to a translating contour: A preference for advancing vs. receding motion [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 9(5):27, 1-9, http://journalofvision.org/9/5/ 27/, doi:10.1167/9.5.27.
5. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1995). One-sided edge assignment in vision: 1. Figure-ground segmentation and attention to objects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 140-146.
6. Bertamini, M. (2006). Who owns the contour of a visual hole? Perception, 35, 883-894.
7. Bertamini, M., & Croucher, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87, 33-54.
8. Bertamini, M., & Hulleman, J. (2006). Amodal completion and visual holes (static and moving). Acta Psychologica, 123, 55-72.
9. Bertamini, M., & Mosca, F. (2004). Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception, 33, 35-48.
10. Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1994). Holes and other superficialities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 248-306.
12. Duncan, R. O., Albright, T. D., & Stoner, G. R. (2000). Occlusion and the interpretation of visual motion: Perceptual and neuronal effects of context. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 5885-5897.
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. Elder, J., & Zucker, S. (1994). A measure of closure. Vision Research, 34, 3361-3369.
15. Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112, 243-252.
16. Fowlkes, C. C., Martin, D. R., & Malik, J. (2007). Local figure-ground cues are valid for natural images. Journal of Vision, 7(8):2, 1-9, http://journalofvision. org/7/8/2/, doi:10.1167/7.8.2.
17. Gillam, B. (1975). The evidence for "closure" in perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 521-524.
18. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1992). Surfaces vs. features in visual search. Nature, 359, 231-233.
19. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
20. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
21. Hulleman, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Differences between searching among objects and searching among holes. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 469-482.
22. Kanizsa, G., & Gerbino, W. (1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In M. Henle (Ed.), Vision and artifact. New York: Springer.
23. Kaplan, G. A. (1969). Kinetic disruption of optical texture: The perception of depth at an edge. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 193-198.
24. Kienker, P. K., Sejnowski, T. J., Hinton, G. E., & Schumacher, L. E. (1986). Separating figure from ground with a parallel network. Perception, 15, 197-216.
25. Kim, S.-H. (2008). Encoding the shape of holes in visual working memory. Poster presented at Object Perception, Attention, and Memory Conference. Chicago, IL.
26. Klymenko, V., & Weisstein, N. (1986). Spatial frequency differences can determine figure-ground organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 324-330.
27. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt.
28. Kovacs, I., & Julesz, B. (1993). A closed curve is much more than an incomplete one: Effect of closure in figure-ground segmentation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90, 7495-7497.
29. Lamme, V. A. (1995). The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 1605-1615.
30. Lee, T. S., Mumford, D., Romero, R., & Lamme, V. A. F. (1998). The role of the primary visual cortex in higher level vision. Vision Research, 38, 2429-2454.
31. Mathes, B., & Fahle, M. (2007). Closure facilitates contour integration. Vision Research, 47, 818-827.
32. Nakayama, K., He, Z., & Shimojo, S. (1995). Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. In S. Kosslyn, & D. Osherson (Eds.), Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 1-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Nakayama, K., Shimojo, S., & Silverman, G. H. (1989). Stereoscopic depth: Its relation to image segmentation, grouping, and the recognition of occluded objects. Perception, 18, 55-68.
34. Nelson, R., & Palmer, S. E. (2001). Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions. Perception, 30, 1213-1226.
35. Palmer, S. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Palmer, S., Davis, J., Nelson, R., & Rock, I. (2008). Figure-ground effects on shape memory for objects versus holes. Perception, 37, 1569-1586.
37. Peterson, M. A. (2003a). Overlapping partial configurations in object memory: An alternative solution to classic problems in perception and recognition. In M. A. Peterson, & G. Rhodes (Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 269-294). New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Peterson, M. A. (2003b). On figures, grounds, and varieties of amodal surface completion. In R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, & C. Olson (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 87-116). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
39. Peterson,M. A., de Gelder, B., Rapcsak, S. Z., Gerhardstein, P. C., & Bachoud-Lévi, A. (2000). Object memory effects on figure assignment: Conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient. Vision Research, 40, 1549-1567.
40. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1993). Shape recognition inputs to figure/ground organization in three dimensional grounds. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 383-429.
41. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994). Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259.
42. Peterson, M. A., & Lampignano, D. W. (2003). Implicit memory for novel figure-ground displays includes a history of cross-border competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 808-822.
43. Peterson, M. A., & Salvagio, E. (2008). Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: Context and convexity. Journal of Vision, 8(16):4, 1-13, http://journalofvision.org/8/16/4/, doi:10.1167 /8.16.4.
44. Peterson, M. A., & Skow, E. (2008). Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure-ground perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 251-267.
45. Qiu, F., & von der Heydt, R. (2005). Figure and ground in the visual cortex: V2 combines stereoscopic cues with Gestalt rules. Neuron, 47, 155-166.
46. Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell wahrgenommene figuren. Kobenhavn, Denmark: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
48. Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. Beardslee, & M. Wertheimer (Ed. and Trans.), Readings in perception (pp. 35-101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand (Original work published in 1915).
49. Stevens, K. A., & Brookes, A. (1988). The concave cusp as a determiner of figure-ground. Perception, 17, 35-42.
50. Subirana-Vilanova, J. B., & Richards, W. A. (1996). Attentional frames, frame curves and figural boundaries: The inside/outside dilemma. Vision Research, 36, 1493-1501.
51. Vecera, S. P. (2000). Toward a biased competition account of object-based segregation and attention. Brain and Mind, 1, 353-384.
52. Vecera, S. P., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1998). Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: An interactive account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 441-462.
53. Vecera, S. P., Vogel, E. K., & Woodman, G. (2002). Lower region: A new cue for figure-ground assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 194-205.
54. von der Heydt, R., Qiu, F. T., & He Z. J. (2003). Neural mechanisms in border ownership assignment: Motion parallax and gestalt cues [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 3(9):666, 666a, http://journalofvision.org/3/9/ 666/, doi:10.1167/3.9.666.
55. Xu, Y. (2002). Encoding color and shape from different parts of an object in visual short-term memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1260-1280.
56. Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594-6611.
57. Zipser, K., Lamme, V. A., & Schiller, P. H. (1996). Contextual modulation in primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 7376-7389.