The shape of a hole and that of the surface-with-hole cannot be analyzed separately

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 608-616

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   Helmy, Mai Salah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contour ownership; Figure ground organization; Holes; Shape perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864094117     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0265-3     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Albrecht, A. R., List, A., & Robertson, L. C. (2008). Attentional selection and the representation of holes and objects. Journal of Vision, 8(13, Art. 8), 1-10.
2. Arnott, S. R., & Shedden, J. M. (2000). Attention switching in depth using random-dot autostereograms: Attention gradient asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1459-1473.
3. Atchley, P., Kramer, A. F., Andersen, G. J., & Theeuwes, J. (1997). Spatial cuing in a stereoscopic display: Evidence for a "depth-aware" attentional focus. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 524-529.
4. Bertamini, M. (2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception, 30, 1295-1310.
5. Bertamini, M. (2006). Who owns the contour of a visual hole. Perception, 35, 883-894.
6. Bertamini, M. & Croucher, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87, 33-54.
7. Bertamini, M., & Farrant, T. (2006). The perceived structural shape of thin (wire-like) objects is different from that of silhouettes. Perception, 35, 1679-1692.
8. Bertamini, M., & Lawson, R. (2006). Visual search for a circular region perceived as a figure versus as a hole: Evidence of the importance of part structure. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 776-791.
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. Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.
12. Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112, 243-252.
13. Gillam, B., & Cook, M. L. (2001). Perspective based on stereopsis and occlusion. Psychological Science, 12, 424-429.
14. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 121, 480-506.
15. Horowitz, T. S., & Kuzmova, Y. (2011). Can we track holes? Vision Research, 51, 1013-1021.
16. Hulleman, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). The difference between searching amongst objects and searching amongst holes. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 469-482.
17. Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Integrative agnosia. In G. W. Humphreys (Ed.), Case studies in the neuropsychology of vision (pp. 41-58). London: Psychology Press.
18. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
19. Lamme, V. A. F., Zipser, K., & Spekreijse, H. (2002). Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1044-1053.
20. Mamassian, P., & Goutcher, R. (2001). Prior knowledge on the illumination position. Cognition, 81, B1-B9.
21. Mazza, V., Turatto, M., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Foreground-background segmentation and attention: A change blindness study. Psychological Research, 69, 201-210.
22. 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.
23. Nelson, R. A., & Palmer, S. E. (2001). Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions. Perception, 30, 1213-1226.
24. Nelson, R. A., & Palmer, S. E. (2007). Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 382-392.
25. Nelson, R. A., Thierman, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2009). Shape memory for intrinsic versus accidental holes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 200-206.
26. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: From photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Palmer, S. E., Davis, J., Nelson, R., & Rock, I. (2008). Figure-ground effects on shape memory for objects versus holes. Perception, 37, 1569-1586.
28. Peterson, M. A. (2003). 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: Erlbaum.
29. Peterson, M. A., & Skow-Grant, E. (2003). Memory and learning in figure-ground perception. In B. Ross & D. Irwin (Eds.), Cognitive vision: Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 1-34). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30. Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell wahrgenommene figuren. Copenhagen: Glydenalske boghandel.
31. Stins, J. F., Polderman, J. C. T., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. C. (2007). Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: Evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 389-396.
32. Tek, H., & Kimia, B. (1995, June). Image segmentation by reaction-diffusion bubbles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Computer Vision (pp. 156-162). Cambridge, MA.
33. Wolfe, J. M., & Bennett, S. C. (1997). Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Research, 37, 25-43.
34. Wong, E., & Weisstein, N. (1982). A new perceptual context-superiority effect: Line segments are more visible against a figure than against a ground. Science, 218, 587-589.
35. Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594-6611.
36. Zhou, K., Luo, H., Zhou, T., Zhuo, Y., & Chen, L. (2010). Topological change disturbs object continuity in attentive tracking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21920-21924.