Subjects were required to discriminate complex random polygons which had the same global shapes but differed in local contour characteristics. Discrimination was most often successful when local contour features comprised a few long line segments or when they were relatively complex. Local contour features of intermediate sized elements and intermediate complexity played a smaller role in discrimination. Presentation time and interstimulus interval effects, and their interaction were observed. A two-factor explanation was offered for the effect of the contour variable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF. (1954) Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183–193.
2.
FosterD. H. (1978) Visual comparison of random-dot patterns: Evidence concerning a fixed visual association between features and feature-relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 637–654.
3.
GarnerW. S. (1962) Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.
4.
HoffmanJ. E. (1980) Interaction between global and local levels of form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 222–234.
5.
HughesH. C.LaytonW. M.BairdJ. C.LesterL. S. (1984) Global precedence in visual pattern recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 361–371.
6.
KimchiR. (1988) Selective attention to global and local levels in the comparison of hierarchical patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 189–198.
7.
KimchiR.PalmerS. E. (1982) Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 521–535.
8.
KimchiR.PalmerS. E. (1985) Separability and integrality of global and local levels of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 673–688.
9.
KinchlaR. A.WolfJ. M. (1979) The order of visual processing: “top-down,” “bottom-up” or “middle-out.”Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 225–231.
10.
KrauskopfJ.DuryeaR. A.BittermanM. E. (1954) Threshold for visual form: Further experiments. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 427–440.
11.
NavonD. (1977) Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441–474.
12.
PaquetL.MerikleP. M. (1988) Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 89–100.
13.
PasnakR. (1971) Pattern complexity and response to distinctive features. American Journal of Psychology, 84, 235–245.
14.
PasnakR.TyerZ. E. (1985) Distinctive local features of visual patterns. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 113–115.
15.
PasnakR.TyerZ. E. (1986) Complex local features as determinants of pattern discrimination. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 41–43.
16.
PezdekK.MakiR.Valencia-LaverO.WhetstoneT.StockertJ.DoughertyT. (1988) Picture memory: Recognizing added and deleted details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 468–476.
17.
RockI.HalperF.ClaytonT. (1972) The perception and recognition of complex figures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 655–673.
