Holes are useful in the study of shape, contour curvature, and border ownership. Several authors have suggested that holes have figural or quasi-figural status. I discuss three criteria to test the evidence that holes behave more like figures than like ground: (i) holes perceived as such; (ii) similar performance for holes and figures; (iii) different performance for holes and other ground regions. Using these criteria, I review the literature and conclude that holes do not have figural status in relation to border ownership. I also argue that holes are ideal stimuli to study figure - ground organisation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertM K, 2001“Cue interactions, border ownership and illusory contours”Vision Research412827–2834
2.
ArnheimR, 1954Art and Visual Perception (Berkeley, CA: University of California)
3.
BarenholtzECohenE HFeldmanJSinghM, 2003“Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities”Cognition891–9
4.
BarenholtzEFeldmanJ, 2003“Visual comparisons within and between object parts: Evidence for a single-part superiority effect”Vision Research431655–1666
5.
BertaminiM, 2001“The importance of being convex: An advantage for convexity when judging position”Perception301295–1310
6.
BertaminiMCroucherC J, 2003“The shape of holes”Cognition8733–54
7.
BertaminiMFarrantT, 2005“Detection of change in shape: An advantage for changes in part structure”Acta Psychologica12035–54
8.
BertaminiMFriedenbergJ, 1999“Effects of contour convexity on performance in symmetry detection and in relative position judgements”Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science39(4) S359 (abstract)
9.
BertaminiMFriedenbergJ DKubovyM, 1997“Detection of symmetry and perceptual organization: The way a lock-and-key process works”Acta Psychologica95119–140
10.
BertaminiMMoscaF, 2004“Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes”Perception3335–48
11.
BozziP, 1975“Osservazioni su alcuni casi di trasparenza fenomenica realizzabili con figure a tratto”, in Studies in Perception: Festschrift for Fabio Metelli Ed. Flores D'ArcaisG B, (Milan: Aldo Martello) pp 88–110
12.
CasatiRVarziA C, 1994Holes and Other Superficialities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
13.
CavedonA, 1980“Contorno e disparazione retinica come determinanti della localizzazione in profondità: Le condizioni della percezione di un foro”, Istituto di Psicologia, Università di Padova, Report 12, pp 1–21
14.
De WinterJWagemansJ, 2004“Contour-based object identification and segmentation: Stimuli, norms and data, and software tools”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36604–624
15.
ElderJ HZuckerS W, 1994“A measure of closure”Vision Research343361–3369
16.
FantoniCBertaminiMGerbinoW, 2005“Curvature contour polarity and visual interpolation”Vision Research451047–1062
17.
FeldmanJSinghM, 2005“Information along contours and object boundaries”Psychological Review112243–252
18.
GibsonB S, 1994“Visual attention and objects: One versus two or convex versus concave?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20203–207
19.
von der HeydtR, 2003“Image parsing mechanisms of the visual cortex”, in The Visual Neurosciences Eds WernerJ SChalupaL M, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 1139–1150
20.
HoffmanD DRichardsW, 1984“Parts of recognition”Cognition1865–96
21.
HoffmanD DSinghM, 1997“Salience of visual parts”Cognition6329–78
22.
HullemanJHumphreysG W, 2005“The difference between searching amongst objects and searching amongst holes”Perception & Psychophysics67469–482
23.
KanizsaGGerbinoW, 1976“Convexity and symmetry in figure – ground organization”, in Art and Artefacts Ed. HenleM, (New York: Springer) pp 25–32
24.
KoffkaK, 1935Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt Brace)
25.
KoenderinkJ J, 1990Solid Shapes (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
26.
LammeV A F, 1995“The neurophysiology of figure – ground segregation in primary visual cortex”Journal of Neuroscience151605–1615
27.
LammeV A FZipserKSpekreijseH, 2002“Masking interrupts figure – ground signals in V1”Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience141044–1053
28.
LewisDLewisS, 1983“Holes”, in Philosophical Papersvolume 1, Ed. LewisD, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp 3–9
29.
MassironiM, 2002The Psychology of Graphic Images: Seeing, Drawing, Communicating (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
30.
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
31.
NelsonRPalmerS E, 2001“Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions”Perception301213–1226
32.
PalmerS E, 1999Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
33.
PaoH-KGeigerD, 2001“A continuous shape descriptor by orientation diffusion”Lecture Notes in Computer Science2134544–559
34.
PetersonM A, 1994“Shape recognition can and does occur before figure – ground organization”Current Directions in Psychological Science3105–111
35.
PetersonM A, 2003“On figures, grounds, and varieties of amodal surface completion”, in Perceptual Organisation in Vision: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives Eds KimchiRBehrmannMOlsonC, (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 87–116
36.
RichardsWHoffmanD D, 1985“Codon constraints on closed 2D shapes”Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing31265–281
37.
RosinP L, 2000“Shape partitioning by convexity”IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics A30202–210
SinghMHoffmanD D, 2001“Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition”, in From Fragments to Objects: Segmentation and Grouping in Vision Eds ShipleyT FKellmanP J, (Oxford: Elsevier) pp 401–459
40.
Subirana-VilanovaJ BRichardsW, 1996“Attentional frames, frame curves and figural boundaries: The inside/outside dilemma”Vision Research361493–1501
41.
VenkateshSRosinP L, 1995“Dynamic threshold determination by local and global edge evaluation”Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing57146–160
