Perception of contour polarity was investigated in five experiments in which observers had to judge the vertical position of a vertex. When the vertex was perceived as convex, the level of performance as measured by reaction time and errors was higher than when the same vertex was perceived as concave. I conclude that contour polarity affects how observers perceive shape, and in particular part structure, and that the position of a part is more readily available than the position of a boundary between parts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF, 1971“Multistability in perception”Scientific American225(6) 63–71.
2.
BahnsenP, 1928“Eine Untersuchung über Symmetrie und Asymmetrie bei visuellen Wahrnehmungen”Zeitschrift für Psychologie108355–361.
3.
BaylisG C, 1995“Visual attention and objects: Two-object cost with equal convexity”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20208–212.
4.
BaylisG CDriverJ, 1993“Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19451–470.
5.
BertaminiM, 2000“Positional and symmetry information of concave and convex vertices”Perception29Supplement, 67.
6.
BertaminiMFriedenbergJ, 2001“Effects of convexity on the time necessary to compare contours” (manuscript in preparation).
7.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147.
8.
DriverJBaylisG C, 1996“Edge-assignment and figure – ground segmentation in short-term visual matching”Cognitive Psychology31248–306.
9.
ElderJZuckerS, 1993“The effect of contour closure on the rapid discrimination of two-dimensional shapes”Vision Research33981–991.
10.
ElderJZuckerS, 1998“Evidence for boundary-specific grouping”Vision Research38143–152.
11.
GibsonB S, 1994“Visual attention and objects: One versus two or convex versus concave?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20203–207.
12.
HeZ JNakayamaK, 1992“Surfaces vs features in visual search”Nature359231–233.
13.
HoffmanD DRichardsW, 1984“Parts of recognition”Cognition1865–96.
14.
HoffmanD DSinghM, 1997“Salience of visual parts”Cognition6329–78.
15.
HullemanJBoselieF, 1998“Scenes, objects, parts: A reference frame hierarchy?”Perception27Supplement, 57.
16.
HullemanJWinkel Wt eBoselieF, 1998“Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries”Perception & Psychophysics62162–174.
17.
HummelJ EBiedermanI, 1992“Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition”Psychological Review99480–517.
KanizsaGGerbinoW, 1976“Convexity and symmetry in figure – ground organization”, in Art and Artefacts Ed. HenleM (New York: Springer) pp 25–32.
20.
KoenderinkJ, 1984“What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape?”Perception13321–330.
21.
LappinJ SCraftW D, 2000“Foundations of spatial vision: From retinal images to perceived shapes”Psychological Review1076–38.
22.
MarrD, 1982Vision (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman).
23.
MarrDNishiharaH K, 1978“Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London200269–294.
24.
NakayamaKHeZ JShimojoS, 1995“Visual surface representation: A Critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision”, in Visual Cognition. An Invitation to Cognitive Science Eds KosslynS MOshersonD N (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 1–70.
25.
NakayamaKShimojoS, 1992“Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces”Science2571357–1363.
26.
PalmerS, 1999Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
27.
PelliD, 1997“The video toolbox software for visual psychophysics transforming numbers into movies”Spatial Vision10437–442.
28.
PentlandA, 1986“Perceptual organization and the representation of natural form”Artificial Intelligence28293–331.
29.
RockI, 1983The Logic of Perception (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
30.
SinghMSeyranianG DHoffmanD D, 1999“Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule”Perception & Psychophysics61636–660.
31.
TreismanASoutherJ, 1985“Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General114285–310.
32.
TsalYLamyDIlanC, 2000“The two-object cost is a space-based phenomenon”Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society533.
