Semantic access occurs outside of awareness for the ground side of a figure

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 76, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 2531-2547

  Cacciamani, Laura ^a   Mojica, Andrew J ^a   Sanguinetti, Joseph L ^a   Peterson, Mary A ^a,b  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Figure ground segregation; Object perception; Perceptual organization; Semantic priming; Visual awareness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AWARENESS; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AWARENESS; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84930519416     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0743-y     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime–target relationship, and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882–898. doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.882
2. Bullier, J. (2001). Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Research Reviews, 36, 96–107.
3. Clarke, A., Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2013). From perception to conception: How meaningful objects are processed over time. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 187–197.
4. Costello, P., Jiang, Y., Baartman, B., McGlennen, K., & He, S. (2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 375–382. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.003
5. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597–600. doi:10.1038/26967
6. Dell’Acqua, R., & Grainger, J. (1999). Unconscious semantic priming from pictures. Cognition, 73, B1–B15. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00049-9
7. Dell’Acqua, R., Sessa, P., Peressotti, F., Mulatti, C., Navarrete, E., & Grainger, J. (2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture–word interference paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 177. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00177
8. Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2011). The characteristics and limits of rapid visual categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 243. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00243
9. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680
10. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
11. Forster, K. I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 2–21). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
12. Gibson, B. S., & Peterson, M. A. (1994). Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cueing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 299–316.
13. Goodhew, S. C., Visser, T. A., Lipp, O. V., & Dux, P. E. (2011). Competing for consciousness: Prolonged mask exposure reduces object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 588–596. doi:10.1037/a0018740
14. Gould, I. C., Rushworth, M. F., & Nobre, A. C. (2011). Indexing the graded allocation of visuospatial attention using anticipatory alpha oscillations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105, 1318–1326. doi:10.1152/jn.00653.2010
15. Greenwald, A. G., Draine, S. C., & Abrams, R. L. (1996). Three cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation. Science, 273, 1699–1702. doi:10.1126/science.273.5282.1699
16. Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). Common cortical mechanisms for different components of visual object recognition: A combined behavioral and fMRI study. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 474. doi:10.1167/1.3.474
17. Grossberg, S. (1994). 3-D vision and figure–ground separation by visual cortex. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 48–120. doi:10.3758/BF03206880
18. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
19. Huckauf, A., Knops, A., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2008). Semantic processing of crowded stimuli? Psychological Research, 72, 648–656.
20. Hutchinson, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813. doi:10.3758/BF03196544
21. Jolicœur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303.
22. Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2014). Within-hemifield posture changes affect tactile–visual exogenous spatial cueing without spatial precision, especially in the dark. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1121–1135. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0484-3
23. Kiefer, M., & Spitzer, M. (2000). Time course of conscious and unconscious semantic brain activation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 2401–2407.
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. doi:10.1068/p150197
25. Kimchi, R., & Peterson, M. A. (2008). Figure–ground segmentation can occur without attention. Psychological Science, 19, 660–668. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02140.x
26. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt.
27. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York, NY: Liveright. Original work published 1929.
28. Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A. (2007). How meaning shapes seeing. Psychological Science, 18, 845–849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01989.x
29. Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., Ruff, D. A., Kiani, R., Bodurka, J., Esteky, H., & Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60, 1126–1141. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043
30. Kurbat, M. A. (1997). Can the recognition of living things really be selectively impaired? Neuropsychologia, 35, 813–827.
31. Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neuroscience, 23, 571–579. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X
32. Likova, L. T., & Tyler, C. W. (2008). Occipital network for figure/ground organization. Experimental Brain Research, 189, 257–267. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1417-6
33. Liu, H., Agam, Y., Madsen, J. R., & Kreiman, G. (2009). Timing, timing, timing: Fast decoding of object information from intracranial field potentials in human visual cortex. Neuron, 62, 281–290.
34. Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618–630. doi:10.3758/BF03212999
35. Luck, S. J., Vogel, E. K., & Shapiro, K. L. (1996). Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink. Nature, 383, 616–618. doi:10.1038/383616a0
36. Macé, M. J.-M., Joubert, O. R., Nespoulous, J.-L., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2009). The time-course of visual categorizations: You spot the animal faster than the bird. PLoS ONE, 4(e5927), 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005927
37. McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558–572. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.558
38. Mohan, K., & Arun, S. P. (2012). Similarity relations in visual search predict rapid visual categorization. Journal of Vision, 12(11), 19. doi:10.1167/12.11.19. 1–24.
39. Naccache, L., Blandin, E., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13, 416–424. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00474
40. Navon, D. (2011). The effect of recognizability on figure–ground processing: Does it affect parsing or only figure selection? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 608–624. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.516834
41. Oram, M. W., & Perrett, D. I. (1992). Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68, 70–84.
42. Peterson, M. A., & Cacciamani, L. (2013). Toward a dynamical view of object perception. In S. J. Dickinson & Z. Pizlo (Eds.), Shape perception in human and computer vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 443–457). London, UK: Springer.
43. Peterson, M. A., Cacciamani, L., Mojica, A. J., & Sanguinetti, J. S. (2012). Meaning can be accessed for the ground side of a figure. Journal of Gestalt Theory, 34, 297–314.
44. Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994a). Must figure–ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253–259.
45. 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.
46. Peterson, M. A., Harvey, E. M., & Weidenbacher, H. J. (1991). Shape recognition contributions to figure–ground reversal: Which route counts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1075–1089. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.1075
47. Peterson, M. A., & Kim, J. H. (2001). On what is bound in figures and grounds. Visual Cognition, 8, 329–348. doi:10.1080/13506280143000034
48. Peterson, M. A., & Kimchi, R. (2013). Perceptual organization. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 9–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49. Peterson, M. A., & Skow, E. (2008). Inhibition competition between shape properties in figure–ground perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 251–267. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.251
50. Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. In J. D. Moore, J. F. Lehman, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 17, pp. 37–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Raposo, A., Mendes, M., & Marques, J. F. (2012). The hierarchical organization of semantic memory: Executive function in the processing of superordinate concepts. NeuroImage, 59, 1870–1878.
52. Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025. doi:10.1038/14819
53. Romei, V., Driver, J., Schyns, P. G., & Thut, G. (2011). Rhythmic TMS over parietal cortex links distinct brain frequencies to global versus local visual processing. Current Biology, 21, 334–337.
54. Salvagio, E., Cacciamani, L., & Peterson, M. A. (2012). Competition-strength-dependent ground suppression in figure–ground perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 964–978. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0280-5
55. Sanguinetti, J. L., Allen, J. J., & Peterson, M. A. (2014). The ground side of an object: Perceived as shapeless yet processed for semantics. Psychological science, 25, 256–264.
56. Sejnowski, T. J., & Hinton, G. E. (1987). Separating figure from ground with a Boltzmann machine. In M. A. Arbib, A. R. Hanson, P. Alfred, & Sloan Foundation, & National Institutes of Health (Eds.), Vision, brain, and cooperative computation (pp. 703–724). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Serre, T., Oliva, A., & Poggio, T. A. (2007). A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 6424–6429.
58. Strother, L., Lavell, C., & Vilis, T. (2012). Figure–ground representation and its decay in primary visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 905–914. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00190
59. Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520–522. doi:10.1038/381520a0
60. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61. Trujillo, L. T., Allen, J. J., Schnyer, D. M., & Peterson, M. A. (2010). Neurophysiological evidence for the influence of past experience on figure–ground perception. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 5:1–21. doi:10.1167/10.2.5
62. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X
63. Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., & Moss, H. E. (2004). Processing objects at different levels of specificity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 351–362.
64. Urner, M., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Friston, K., & Rees, G. (2013). Early visual learning induces long-lasting connectivity changes during rest in the human brain. NeuroImage, 77, 148–156.
65. Van den Bussche, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Reynvoet, B. (2009). Mechanism of masked priming: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 452–477. doi:10.1037/a0015329
66. Vecera, S. P., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or interactive process? Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1280–1296. doi:10.3758/BF03214214
67. Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., & Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure–ground assignment. Psychological Science, 15, 20–26. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501004.x
68. Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594–6611.
69. Zusne, L. (1975). Curved contours and the associative response. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 203–208.