A large rectangle delays the perception of a separate small rectangle

Abstract

Deciding whether two objects, rather than one, are present takes longer for large-small and small-large pairs of rectangles than for large-large and small-small pairs of rectangles. This large-small slowdown was eliminated when the large rectangle was slightly modified, when the large and small rectangles were contiguous, or when the task was to identify the large rectangle. However, it did occur when the task was to identify the small rectangle. These results suggest that the large rectangle delayed the perception of the small rectangle. Codes for features did not cause this delay. Instead, the evidence indicates that each rectangle evoked its own superordinate code, and that the large-rectangle superordinate code produced the gestalt of a large rectangle and also inhibited the small-rectangle superordinate code, thereby delaying the perception of the gestalt of a small rectangle. Thus, superordinate codes may also bethe direct cause of other gestalts and their associated perceptual outcomes.

Two effects of context of the presence/absence of connecting segments

“…234-235) and size (King, 1990b). The 11:2 ratio in size of the internal lines to connecting segments of the internal-lines rectangle hints that a similar dominant-subordinate interaction produced the division outcome.…”

“…In accord with this possibility, a large rectangle failed to inhibit the perception of a small rectangle when these rectangles were contiguous (King, 1990b). Perhaps context-produced increases in visibility are limited in some more serious way.…”

One line decreases the visibility of a simultaneous identical distant second line

“…Recall that making two rectangles contiguous eliminated evidence of a large-against-small DV (King, 1990b). In addition, superimposition of a target and context produced less attentional interference than did their spatial separation (Treisman, Kahneman, & Burkell, 1983).…”

“…Because the bottom line is thereby obviously visible, a speeded response task was used. The one employed was the one versus two task, because this type of task is sensitive to a DV (King, 1990b).…”

“…In addition, the high-luminance and low-luminance objects may function as separate groups, because they do not overlap, and because they are dissimilar in luminance (i.e., the gestalt principle of similarity may apply). A second indication is that a large (more visible) rectangle impairs the perception of a spatially separated small (less visible) rectangle, with differences in physical contrast controlled, according to an identification task and also a task in which two rectangles are discriminated from one of these rectangles (King, 1990b). In addition, when the large and small rectangles are contiguous and hence tend to be apprehended as one group, the DV evidence disappears.…”