We used primed matching to examine the microgenesis of perceptual organization for familiar (upright letters) and unfamiliar (inverted letters) visual configurations that varied in the connectedness between their line components. The configurations of upright letters were available for priming as early as 40 ms, irrespective of connectedness between their line components. The configurations of connected inverted-letter primes were also available this early, but the configurations of disconnected inverted letters were not available until later. These results show that past experience contributes to the early grouping of disconnected line segments into configurations. These findings suggest an interactive model of perceptual organization in which both image-based properties (e.g., connectedness) and input from object memories contribute to perceptual organization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellerH.K.
(1971).
Priming: Effects of advance information on matching.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
87, 176–182.
2.
EverettB.L.HochhausL.BrownJ.R.
(1985).
Letter-naming as a function of intensity, degradation, S-R compatibility, and practice.
Perception & Psychophysics,
27, 467–470.
3.
HanS.HumphreysG.W.ChenL.
(1999).
Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping.
Perception & Psychophysics,
61, 661–674.
4.
HockH.S.MarcusN.
(1976).
The effect of familiarity on the processing of fragmented figures.
Perception & Psychophysics,
20, 375–379.
5.
HoffmanD.D.RichardsW.
(1984).
Parts of recognition.
Cognition,
18, 65–96.
6.
JolicoeurP.
(1985).
The time to name disoriented natural objects.
Memory & Cognition,
13, 289–303.
7.
JolicoeurP.
(1988).
Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects.
Canadian Journal of Psychology,
42, 461–478.
8.
JolicoeurP.SnowD.MurrayJ.
(1987).
The time to identify disoriented letters: Effects of practice and font.
Canadian Journal of Psychology,
41, 303–316.
9.
KanizsaG.
(1979).
Organization in vision.
New York: Praeger.
10.
KimchiR.
(1998).
Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
24, 1105–1118.
11.
KimchiR.
(2000).
Perceptual organization of visual objects: A microgenetic analysis.
Vision Research,
40, 1333–1347.
12.
KoffkaK.
(1935).
Principles of Gestalt psychology.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
13.
KohlerW.
(1947).
Gestalt psychology.
New York: New American Library. (Original work published 1929)
MarrD.
(1982).
Vision: A computational investigation into human representation and processing of visual information.
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
16.
McClellandJ.L.RumelhartD.E.
(1981).
An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings.
Psychological Review,
88, 315–401.
17.
NeisserU.
(1967).
Cognitive psychology.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
18.
PalmerS.E.RockI.
(1994a).
On the nature and order of organizational processing: A reply to Peterson.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
1, 515–519.
19.
PalmerS.E.RockI.
(1994b).
Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
1, 9–55.
20.
PetersonM.A.
(1994a).
Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
3, 105–111.
21.
PetersonM.A.
(1994b).
The proper placement of uniform connectedness.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
1, 509–514.
22.
PetersonM.A.
(1999).
What's in a stage name? Comment on Vecera and O'Reilly (1998).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
25, 276–286.
23.
PetersonM.A.GibsonB.S.
(1994a).
Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril.
Psychological Science,
5, 253–259.
24.
PetersonM.A.GibsonB.S.
(1994b).
Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours.
Perception & Psychophysics,
56, 551–564.
25.
RubinE.
(1958).
Figure and ground. In
BeardsleeD.C.WertheimerM. (Eds. & Trans.),
Readings in perception
(pp. 194–203).
New York: Van Nostrand. (Original work published 1915)
26.
SekulerA.B.PalmerS.E.
(1992).
Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
11, 95–111.
27.
SnodgrassJ.G.CorwinJ.
(1988).
Perceptual identification thresholds for 150 fragmented pictures from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart picture set.
Perceptual and Motor Skills,
67, 3–36.
28.
TarrM.PinkerS.
(1989).
Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition.
Cognitive Psychology,
21, 233–282.
29.
VeceraS.P.FarahM.J.
(1997).
Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process?Perception & Psychophysics,
59, 1280–1296.
30.
VeceraS.P.O'ReillyR.C.
(1998).
Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: An interactive account.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
24, 441–462.
31.
WallachH.SlaughterV.
(1988).
The role of memory in perceiving subjective contours.
Perception & Psychophysics,
43, 101–106.
32.
WertheimerM.
(1955).
Gestalt theory. In
EllisW.D. (Ed.),
A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 1–16).
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1923)
