Processing convexity and concavity along a 2-D contour: Figure-ground, structural shape, and attention

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 191-207

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   Wagemans, Johan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Convexity; Object representation; Shape; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874698001     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0347-2     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Albrecht, A. R., List, A., & Robertson, L. C. (2008). Attentional selection and the representation of holes and objects. Journal of Vision, 8(13), 1-10.
2. Asada, H., & Brady, M. (1984). The curvature primal sketch. Technical Report, MIT AI memo 758.
3. Arnheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183-193.
5. Barenholtz, E., Cohen, E. H., Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2003). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition, 89(1), 1-9.
6. Barenholtz, E., & Feldman, J. (2003). Visual comparisons within and between object parts: Evidence for a single-part superiority effect. Vision Research, 43, 1655-1666.
7. Barenholtz, E., & Feldman, J. (2006). Determination of visual figure and ground in dynamically deforming shapes. Cognition, 101(3), 530-544. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2005. 12. 00.
8. Barenholtz, E., & Tarr, M. J. (2008). Visual judgment of similarity across shape transformations: Evidence for a compositional model of articulated objects. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 331-338.
9. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1993). Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 19(3), 451-470.
10. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1994). Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition in single visual objects. Visual Cognition, 1, 377-400.
11. 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 and Performance, 21(6), 1323-1342.
12. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (2001). Perception of symmetry and repetition within and across visual shapes: Part-descriptions and object-based attention. Visual Cognition, 8(2), 163-196.
13. Bertamini, M. (2001). The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position. Perception, 30, 1295-1310.
14. Bertamini, M. (2006). Who owns the contour of a hole? Perception, 35, 883-894.
15. Bertamini, M. (2008). Detection of convexity and concavity in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 775-789.
16. Bertamini, M., & Croucher, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87(1), 33-54.
17. Bertamini, M., & Farrant, T. (2005). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for changes in part structure. Acta Psychologica, 120, 35-54.
18. Bertamini, M., & Farrant, T. (2006). The perceived structural shape of thin (wire-like) objects is different from that of silhouettes. Perception, 35, 1265-1288.
19. Bertamini, M., Friedenberg, J., & Argyle, L. (2002). No within- object advantage for detection of rotation. Acta Psychologica, 111, 59-81.
20. Bertamini, M., Friedenberg, J., & Kubovy, M. (1997). Detection of symmetry and perceptual organization: The way a lock-and-key process works. Acta Psychologica, 95, 119-140.
21. Bertamini, M., & Hulleman, J. (2006). Amodal completion and visual holes (static and moving). Acta Psychologica, 123, 55-72.
22. Bertamini, M., & Lawson, R. (2006). Visual search for a figure among holes and for a hole among figures. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 776-791.
23. Bertamini, M., & Lawson, R. (2008). Rapid figure-ground responses to stereograms reveal an advantage for a convex foreground. Perception, 37, 483-494.
24. Bertamini, M., & Mosca, F. (2004). Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception, 33, 35-48.
25. Bertamini, M., Helmy, M. S., & Hulleman, J. (2012). The role of convexity in perception of symmetry and in visual short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2012. 717953.
26. Bertamini, M., Martinovic, J., Wuerger, S. M. (2008). Integration of ordinal and metric cues in depth processing. Journal of Vision, 8(2), 1-12. http://journalofvision. org/8/2/10/ doi: 10. 1167/8. 2. 10.
27. Bhatt, R. S., & Bertin, E. (2001). Pictorial cues and three-dimensional information processing in early infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80(4), 315-332.
28. Bhatt, R. S., Hayden, A., Reed, A., Bertin, E., & Joseph, J. (2006). Infants' perception of information along object boundaries: Concavities versus convexities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(2), 91-113. doi: 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2006. 01. 002.
29. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115-147.
30. Braunstein, M. L., Hoffman, D. D., & Saidpour, A. (1989). Parts of visual objects: An experimental test of the minima rule. Perception, 18(6), 817-826.
31. Brincat, S. L., & Connor, C. E. (2004). Underlying principles of visual shape selectivity in posterior inferotemporal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7(8), 880-886.
32. Brincat, S., & Connor, C. (2006). Dynamic shape synthesis in posterior inferotemporal cortex. Neuron, 49, 17-24.
33. Burge, J., Fowlkes, C. C., & Banks, M. S. (2010). Natural-scene statistics predict how the figure-ground cue of convexity affects human depth perception. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7269-7280.
34. Burge, J., Peterson, M. A., Palmer, S. E. (2005). Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception. Journal of Vision, 5(6), 534-542.
35. Carlson, E. T., Rasquinha, R. J., Zhang, K., & Connor, C. E. (2011). A sparse object coding scheme in area V4. Current Biology, 21, 288-293. doi: 10. 1016/j. cub. 2011. 01. 013.
36. Cohen, E. H., & Singh, M. (2007). Geometric determinants of shape segmentation: Tests using segment identification. Vision Research, 47, 2825-2840.
37. 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.
38. Corrow, S., Granrud, C. E., Mathison, J., & Yonas, A. (2011). Six-month-old infants perceive the hollow face illusion. Perception, 40, 1376-1383.
39. De Winter, J., & Wagemans, J. (2006). Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A large-scale integrative study. Cognition, 99, 275-325.
40. De Winter, J., & Wagemans, J. (2008). Perceptual saliency of points along the contour of everyday objects: A large-scale study. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 50-64.
41. Dhandapani, R., & Kimia, B. B. (2002). Role of scale in partitioning shape. In International conference on image processing (pp. 565).
42. Fantoni, C., Bertamini, M., & Gerbino, W. (2005). Contour curvature polarity and surface interpolation. Vision Research, 45, 1047-1062.
43. Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112, 243-252.
44. Fowlkes, C. C., Martin, D. R., & Malik, J. (2007). Local figure-ground cues are valid for natural images. Journal of Vision, 7(8), 2. doi: 10. 1167/7. 8.
45. Friedenberg, J., & Bertamini, M. (2000). Contour symmetry detection: The influence of axis orientation and number of objects. Acta Psychologica, 105, 107-118.
46. Fulvio, J. M., & Singh, M. (2006). Surface geometry influences the shape of illusory contours. Acta Psychologica, 123(1-2), 20-40.
47. Gibson, B. S. (1994). Visual attention and objects: One versus two or convex versus concave? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 203-207.
48. Gillam, B. J., Anderson, B. L., Rizwi, F. (2009). Failure of facial configural cues to alter metric stereoscopic depth. Journal of Vision, 9(1)3, 1-5, doi: 10. 1167/9. 1. 3.
49. Haushofer, J., Baker, C. I., Livingstone, M. S., & Kanwisher, N. (2008). Privileged coding of convex shapes in human object-selective cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 753-762.
50. Hayden, A., Bhatt, R. S., Kangas, A., & Zieber, N. (2011). Parts, cavities, and object representation in infancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 314-317.
51. Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 24, 427-440.
52. Hayward, W. G., Tarr, M. J., & Corderoy, A. K. (1999). Recognizing silhouettes and shaded images across depth rotation. Perception, 28, 1197-1215.
53. Hebb, D. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
54. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1993). Independent effects of lighting, orientation, and stereopsis on the hollow-face illusion. Perception, 22, 887-897.
55. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
56. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
57. Horowitz, T. S., & Kuzmova, Y. (2011). Can we track holes? Vision Research, 51(9), 1013-1021. doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2011. 02. 009.
58. Howard, I. P. (1996). Alhazen's neglected discoveries of visual phenomena. Perception, 25, 1203-1217.
59. Hulleman, J., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2007). Concavities count for less in symmetry perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1212-1217.
60. Hulleman, J., te Winkel, W., & Boselie, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(1), 162-174.
61. Humphreys, G., & Müller, H. (2000). A search asymmetry reversed by figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 11(3), 196-201.
62. Jacobs, D. W. (1996). Robust and efficient detection of salient convex groups. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(1), 23-37.
63. Johnston, A., Hill, H., & Carman, N. (1992). Recognising faces: Effects of lighting direction, inversion and brightness reversal. Perception, 21, 365-375.
64. 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 Publishing Co.
65. Kennedy, J. M., & Domander, R. (1985). Shape and contour: The points of maximum change are least useful for recognition. Perception, 14(3), 367-370.
66. Kim, S.-H., & Feldman, J. (2009). Globally inconsistent figure/ground relations induced by a negative part. Journal of Vision, 9(10), 13-81. doi: 10. 1167/9. 10.
67. Koenderink, J. (1984). What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape? Perception, 13, 321-330.
68. Koenderink, J. (1990). Solid shape. Cambridge: MIT Press.
69. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1982). The shape of smooth objects and the way contours end. Perception, 11, 129-137.
70. Koenderink, J. J., van Doorn, A. J., Kappers, A. M. L., & Todd, J. T. (2001). Ambiguity and the "mental eye" in pictorial relief. Perception, 30, 431-448.
71. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan.
72. Kogo, N., Galli, A., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Switching dynamics of border ownership: A stochastic model for bi-stable perception. Vision Research, 51, 2085-2098.
73. Kogo, N., & Wagemans, J. (2012). The 'side' matters: How configurality is reflected in completion. Cognitive Neuroscience, in press.
74. Koning, A., & Wagemans, J. (2009). Detection of symmetry and repetition in one and two objects. Structures versus strategies. Experimental Psychology, 56(1), 5-17. doi: 10. 1027/1618-3169. 56. 1.
75. Lamote, C., & Wagemans, J. (1999). Rapid integration of contour fragments: From simple filling-in to parts-based shape description. Visual Cognition, 6(3), 345-361.
76. Langer, M. S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). A prior for global convexity in local shape-from-shading. Perception, 30, 403-410.
77. Lappin, J. S., & Craft, W. D. (2000). Foundations of spatial vision: From retinal images to perceived shapes. Psychological Review, 107, 6-38.
78. Lappin, J. S., Norman, J. F., & Phillips, F. (2011). Fechner, information, and shape perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2353-2378.
79. Lim, I. S., & Leek, E. C. (2012). Curvature and the visual perception of shape: Theory on information along object boundaries and the minima rule revisited. Psychological Review, 119(3), 668-677.
80. Liu, Z., Jacobs, D. W., & Basri, R. (1999). The role of convexity in perceptual completion: Beyond good continuation. Vision Research, 39, 4244-4257.
81. Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Luckhurst, L. (2002). Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things. Memory & Cognition, 30, 489-498.
82. Mach, E. (1959). The analysis of sensations, and the relation of the physical to the psychical. New York: Dover. original work published in German in 1897.
83. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of spatial-organization of 3-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 200(1140), 269-294.
84. Müller, K.-M., Wilke, M., & Leopold, D. A. (2009). Visual adaptation to convexity in macaque area V4. Neuroscience, 161(2), 655-662. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroscience. 2009. 03. 070.
85. Nelson, R., Thierman, J., & Palmer, S. E. (2009). Shape memory for intrinsic versus accidental holes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 200-206.
86. Norman, J. F., Phillips, F., & Ross, H. E. (2001). Information concentration along the boundary contours of naturally shaped solid objects. Perception, 30, 1285-1294.
87. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
88. Palmer, S. E., Davis, J., Nelson, R., & Rock, I. (2008). Figure - ground effects on shape memory for objects versus holes. Perception, 37, 1569-1586.
89. Panis, S., De Winter, J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Wagemans, J. (2008). Identification of everyday objects on the basis of fragmented outline versions. Perception, 37, 271-289.
90. Panis, S., & Wagemans, J. (2009). Time-course contingencies in perceptual organization and identification of fragmented object outlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 661-687.
91. Pao, H.-K., Geiger, D., Rubin, N. (1999). Measuring convexity for figure/ground separation. In 7th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Kerkyra, Greece, 1999.
92. Pao, H.-K., & Geiger, D. (2001). A continuous shape descriptor by orientation diffusion. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2134, 544-559.
93. Pasupathy, A., & Connor, C. E. (2002). Population coding of shape in area v4. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1332-1338.
94. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1993). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional displays. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 383-429.
95. Peterson, M. A., & Salvagio, E. (2008). Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: Context and convexity. Journal of Vision, 8(16) 24, 1-13, doi: 10. 1167/8. 16. 4.
96. Peterson, M. A., & Skow, E. (2008). Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure-ground perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 251-267.
97. Preparata, F., & Shamos, I. (1985). Computational geometry: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
98. Richards, W., Koenderink, J. J., & Hoffman, D. D. (1987). Inferring three-dimensional shapes from two-dimensional silhouettes. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, 4, 1168-1175.
99. Rosenholtz, R. (2001). Search asymmetries? what search asymmetries? Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 476-489.
100. Rosin, P. L. (2000). Shape partitioning by convexity. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A, 30, 202-210.
101. Sabra, A. I. (1989). The optics of Ibn al-Haytham: Books I-III: On direct vision. London: Warburg Institute. English translation and commentary by Sabra, A. I.
102. Sakai, K., & Inui, T. (2002). A feature-segmentation model of short-term visual memory. Perception, 31(5), 579-590.
103. Salapatek, P. (1968). Visual scanning of geometric figures by the human newborn. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 247-258.
104. Siddiqi, K., Tresness, K. J., & Kimia, B. B. (1996). Parts of visual form: Psychophysical aspects. Perception, 25, 399-424.
105. Singh, M., & Feldman, J. (2012). Principles of contour information: Reply to Lim and Leek (2012). Psychological Review, 119(3), 678-683.
106. Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. (1998). Part boundaries alter the perception of transparency. Psychological Science, 9, 370-378.
107. Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D. (2001). Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition. In T. F. Shipley & P. J. Kellman (Eds.), From fragments to objects: Grouping and segmentation in vision (pp. 401-459). Oxford: Elsevier.
108. Singh, M., Seyranian, G. D., & Hoffman, D. D. (1999). Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 636-660.
109. Suzuki, S. (2001). Attention-dependent brief adaptation to contour orientation: A high-level after effect for convexity? Vision Research, 41, 3883-3902.
110. Suzuki, S. (2003). Attentional selection of overlapped shapes: A study using brief shape after effects. Vision Research, 43(5), 549-561.
111. Suzuki, S., & Cavanagh, P. (1998). A shape-contrast effect for briefly presented stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1-27.
112. Treder, M. S., & van der Helm, P. A. (2007). Symmetry versus repetition in cyclopean vision: A microgenetic analysis. Vision Research, 47, 2956-2967.
113. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95(1), 15.
114. Vaina, L. M., & Zlateva, S. D. (1990). The largest convex patches: A boundary-based method for obtaining object parts. Biological Cybernetics, 62, 235-236.
115. Vandekerckhove, J., Panis, S., & Wagemans, J. (2007). The concavity effect is a compound of local and global effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1253-1260.
116. van Doorn, A. J., Koenderink, J. J., Wagemans, J. (2011). Light fields and shape from shading. Journal of Vision, 11(3)21, 1-21. doi: 10. 1167/11. 3. 21.
117. Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., & Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 15, 20-26.
118. Wagemans, J., De Winter, J., Op de Beeck, H., Ploeger, A., Beckers, T., & Vanroose, P. (2008). Identification of everyday objects on the basis of silhouette and outline versions. Perception, 37(2), 207-244.
119. Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172-1217. doi: 10. 1037/a0029333.
120. Wagemans, J., van Doorn, A. J., & Koenderink, J. J. (2010). The shading cue in context. Perception, 1, 159-178. doi: 10. 1068/i0401.
121. Wang, X., & Burbeck, C. A. (1998). Scaled medial axis representation: Evidence from position discrimination task. Vision Research, 38, 1947-1959.
122. Wolfe, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1-7.
123. Wolfe, J., & Bennett, S. C. (1997). Preattentive object files: Shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision Research, 37, 25-43.
124. Xu, Y., & Singh, M. (2002). Early computation of part structure: Evidence from visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1039-1054.
125. 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(50), 21920-21924.
126. Zunic, J. D., & Rosin, P. L. (2002). A convexity measure for polygons. In British machine vision conference, Cardiff, 2002. British Machine Vision Association.