The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of tilting a frame on the perceptual organization in random dot patterns. Ten random patterns of nine dots were generated. For each pattern, a square frame was tilted at seven angles around the dots. Ten observers were asked to indicate the groups of dots in each stimulus. Each stimulus was seen 4 times by each observer which enabled us to study within-subject consistencies provided grouping reports. Within- and between-subject consistencies were computed to study if the responses provided by participants were consistent and thus reliable. The dominant group was defined as the most repeated group in all 40 reports (10 participants, 4 repetitions) obtained for each stimulus. We studied how tilting a frame affected the dominant group in each dot pattern. Perceptual grouping was not affected by tilting the frame. Based on a qualitative inspection, we remark that fundamental principles, for example, proximity, good continuation, and closure, respectively, in the order of strength, may remain the main drivers of the grouping behavior, irrespective of differences in the number of dots in each group, and the frame orientation. The numerosity condition did not affect our results. Similar trends were observed in patterns of 9 and 18 dots patterns.
AlaisD.BlakeR.LeeS. H. (1998). Visual features that vary together over time group together over space. Nature Neuroscience, 1(2), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/414
2.
Ben-AvM. B.SagiD. (1995). Perceptual grouping by similarity and proximity: Experimental results can be predicted by intensity autocorrelations. Vision Research, 35(6), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)00173-J
3.
BrooksJ. L. (2015). Traditional and new principles of perceptual grouping. In WagemansJ. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization (pp. 57–87). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686858.013.060
4.
ComptonB. J.LoganG. D. (1993). Evaluating a computational model of perceptual grouping by proximity. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206783
5.
ComptonB. J.LoganG. D. (1999). Judgments of perceptual groups: Reliability and sensitivity to stimulus transformation. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(7), 1320–1335. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206183
6.
DiLorenzoJ. R.RockI. (1982). The rod-and-frame effect as a function of the righting of the frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(4), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.536
7.
FrenchR. S. (1954). Pattern recognition in the presence of visual noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058298
HochbergJ.SilversteinA. (1956). A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. Differences in brightness. The American Journal of Psychology, 69(3), 456–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/1419052
ImH. Y.ZhongS. H.HalberdaJ. (2016). Grouping by proximity and the visual impression of approximate number in random dot arrays. Vision Research, 126, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.08.013
12.
KanizsaG. (1979). Organization in vision: Essays on Gestalt perception. Praeger Publishers.
13.
KimchiR.BehrmannM.OlsonC. R.(Eds.). (2003). Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives. Psychology Press.
KubovyM.WagemansJ. (1995). Grouping by proximity and multistability in dot lattices: A quantitative Gestalt theory. Psychological Science, 6(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00597.x
16.
KubovyM.HolcombeA. O.WagemansJ. (1998). On the lawfulness of grouping by proximity. Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0673
17.
LezamaJ.RandallG.MorelJ. M.von GioiR. G. (2016). Good continuation in dot patterns: A quantitative approach based on local symmetry and non-accidentalness. Vision Research, 126, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.09.004
18.
LiW.MatinL. (2005). The rod-and-frame effect: The whole is less than the sum of its parts. Perception, 34(6), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5411
19.
LunaD.MontoroP. R. (2011). Interactions between intrinsic principles of similarity and proximity and extrinsic principle of common region in visual perception. Perception, 40(12), 1467–1477. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7086
20.
LunaD.Villalba-GarcíaC.MontoroP. R.HinojosaJ. A. (2016). Dominance dynamics of competition between intrinsic and extrinsic grouping cues. Acta Psychologica, 126, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.07.001
MetzgerW. (1975). Gesetze des Sehens (3rd ed.). Kramer.
23.
MurgiaM.PrpicV.SantoroI.SorsF.AgostiniT.GalmonteA. (2016). Perceptual belongingness determines the direction of lightness induction depending on grouping stability and intentionality. Vision Research, 126, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.10.018
NirG. (2015). How do multiple inducers group in perceptual completion stimuli-psychophysics and modeling. Journal of Vision, 15(12), 843–843. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.843
PalmerS. E. (2002). Perceptual organization in vision. In PashlerH. (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 177–243). John Wiley and sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471214426.pas0105
29.
PalmerS. E. (2003). Perceptual organization and grouping. In KimchiR.BehrmannM.OlsonC. R. (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision (pp. 15–56). Psychology Press.
30.
PalmerS.RockI. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200760
31.
PomerantzJ. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(4), 516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.516
32.
PrietoA.MayasJ.BallesterosS. (2019). Interaction dynamics between grouping principles in touch: Phenomenological and psychophysical evidence. Psychological Research, 83(8), 1612–1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1029-0
33.
QuinlanP. T.WiltonR. N. (1998). Grouping by proximity or similarity? Competition between the Gestalt principles in vision. Perception, 27(4), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1068/p270417
34.
RockI. (1997). Orientation and form. In RockI. (Ed.), Indirect perception (pp. 133–150). The MIT Press. (Reprinted in modified form from “Scientific American,” 230(1), 1974, pp. 78–85).
35.
RockI.Rock-DECEASEDI.(Eds.). (2014). The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology. Psychology Press. ISBN: 1317784588, 9781317784586
36.
SaramiA.AfhamiR. (2017). Visual perception of a lattice of dots surrounded by a tilted frame: A Gestalt approach. In: Abstracts from the 5th visual science of art conference (VSAC): Berlin, Germany, August 25th–27th 2017. Art & Perception, 5(4), 337–426. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002099
UttalW. R. (1973). The effect of deviations from linearity on the detection of dotted line patterns. Vision Research, 13(11), 2155–2163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(73)90193-4
40.
UttalW. R.BunnellL. M.CorwinS. (1970). On the detectability of straight lines in visual noise: An extension of French’s paradigm into the millisecond domain. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(6), 385–388. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207029
41.
Van Den BergM. C. J. (2006). Grouping by proximity and grouping by good continuation in the perceptual organization of random dot patterns. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(10-B), 5706. University of Virginia.
42.
Van Den BergM.KubovyM.SchirilloJ. A. (2011). Grouping by regularity and the perception of illumination. Vision Research, 51(12), 1360–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.013
43.
Van OeffelenM. P.VosP. G. (1982). Configurational effects on the enumeration of dots: Counting by groups. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202432
WagemansJ.ElderJ. H.KubovyM.PalmerS. E.PetersonM. A.SinghM.von der HeydtR. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029333
46.
WagemansJ.FeldmanJ.GepshteinS.KimchiR.PomerantzJ. R.Van der HelmP. A.Van LeeuwenC. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029334
47.
WertheimerM. (1923). A brief introduction to Gestalt, identifying key theories and principles. Psychologische Forschung, 4(1), 301–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640
48.
WitkinH. A.AschS. E. (1948a). Studies in space orientation. III. Perception of the upright in the absence of a visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(5), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055372
49.
WitkinH. A.AschS. E. (1948b). Studies in space orientation. IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(6), 762–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053671
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
