Grouping puts figure-ground assignment in context by constraining propagation of edge assignment

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1053-1069

  Brooks, Joseph L ^a   Driver, Jon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CUES; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 77955291193     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.4.1053     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Albert, M. K., & Hoffman, D. D. (1995). Genericity in spatial vision. In R. D. Luce, M. D'Zmura, D. D. Hoffman, G. J. Iverson, & A. K. Romney (Eds.), Geometric representations of perceptual phenomena: Papers in honor of Tarow Indow on his 70th birthday (pp. 95-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Appelbaum, L. G., Wade, A. R., Vildavski, V. Y., Pettet, M. W., & Norcia, A. M. (2006). Cue-invariant networks for figure and background processing in human visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 11695-11708.
3. Barenholtz, E., & Tarr, M. J. (2009). Figure-ground assignment to a translating contour: A preference for advancing vs. receding motion. Journal of Vision, 9(5, Art. 27), 1-9.
4. Baylis, G. C., & Cale, E. M. (2001). The figure has a shape, but the ground does not: Evidence from a priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 633-643.
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. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (2001). Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 937-942.
7. Behrmann, M., Zemel, R. S., & Mozer, M. C. (2000). Occlusion, symmetry, and object-based attention: Reply to Saiki (2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1497-1505.
8. Clowes, M. B. (1971). On seeing things. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 79-116.
9. Craft, E., Schutze, H., Niebur, E., & von der Heydt, R. (2007). A neural model of figure-ground organization. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 4310-4326.
10. Driver, J., & Baylis, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 248-306.
11. Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161-177.
12. Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2005). The dynamic events that capture visual attention: A reply to Abrams and Christ (2005). Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 962-966.
13. Guzman, A. (1969). Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies. In A. Griselli (Ed.), Automatic interpretation and classification of images (pp. 243-276). New York: Academic Press.
14. Heitger, F., von der Heydt, R., Peterhans, E., Rosenthaler, L., & Kubler, O. (1998). Simulation of neural contour mechanisms: Representing anomalous contours. Image & Vision Computing, 16, 407-421.
15. Hillstrom, A. P., & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 399-411.
16. Huang, L., & Pashler, H. (2009). Reversing the attention effect in figure-ground perception. Psychological Science, 20, 1199-1201.
17. Huffman, D. A. (1971). Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligency (Vol. 6, pp. 295-323). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
18. Hulleman, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). A new cue to figure-ground coding: Top-bottom polarity. Vision Research, 44, 2779-2791.
19. 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.
20. Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). Representation of perceived object shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science, 293, 1506-1509.
21. Lowe, D. G. (1985). Perceptual organization and visual recognition. Boston: Kluwer.
22. Matsukura, M., & Vecera, S. P. (2006). The return of object-based attention: Selection of multiple-region objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1163-1175.
23. Metzger, W. (1953). Gesetze des Sehens. Frankfurt-am-Main: Waldemar Kramer.
24. Nelson, R., & Palmer, S. E. (2007). Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 382-392.
25. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Palmer, S. E., & Brooks, J. L. (2008). Edge-region grouping in figure-ground organization and depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 1353-1371.
27. Palmer, S., & Rock, I. (1994a). On the nature and order of organizational processing: A reply to Peterson. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 515-519.
28. Palmer, S., & Rock, I. (1994b). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 29-55.
29. Peterhans, E., & Heitger, F. (2001). Simulation of neuronal responses defining depth order and contrast polarity at illusory contours in monkey area V2. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 10, 195-211.
30. Peterson, M. A. (1994). Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 105-111.
31. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994a). Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259.
32. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994b). Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 551-564.
33. Peterson, M. A., & Salvagio, E. (2008). Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: Context and convexity. Journal of Vision, 8(16, Art. 4), 1-13.
34. Polat, U., Mizobe, K., Pettet, M. W., Kasamatsu, T., & Norcia, A. M. (1998). Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold. Nature, 391, 580-584.
35. Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell Wahrgenommene Figuren. Copenhagen: Glydendalske.
37. Stevens, K. A., & Brookes, A. (1988). The concave cusp as a determiner of figure-ground. Perception, 17, 35-42.
38. Thielscher, A., & Neumann, H. (2008). Globally consistent depth sorting of overlapping 2D surfaces in a model using local recurrent interactions. Biological Cybernetics, 98, 305-337.
39. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In N. J. Castellan & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory (pp. 199-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., & Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 15, 20-26.
41. Vecera, S. P., Vogel, E. K., & Woodman, G. F. (2002). Lower region: A new cue for figure-ground assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 194-205.
42. von der Heydt, R., Zhou, H., & Friedman, H. S. (2000). Representation of stereoscopic edges in monkey visual cortex. Vision Research, 40, 1955-1967.
43. Wagner, G., & Boynton, R. M. (1972). Comparison of four methods of heterochromatic photometry. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 62, 1508-1515.
44. Yonas, A., Craton, L. G., & Thompson, W. B. (1987). Relative motion: Kinetic information for the order of depth at an edge. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 53-59.
45. Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594-6611.