Attentional requirements in perceptual grouping depend on the processes involved in the organization

Abstract

Previous studies on the role of attention in perceptual grouping have yielded contradicting findings, some suggesting that grouping requires attention and others indicating that it does not. Kimchi and Razpurker-Apfeld (Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(4), [687][688][689][690][691][692][693][694][695][696] 2004) showed that attentional demands in grouping could vary according to the processes involved. The current study expanded on this, examining whether attentional demands vary for (a) different grouping principles and (b) as a function of contingent processing of element segregation and shape formation. We used the inattention paradigm with an online measure, in which participants engaged in an attentionally demanding changedetection task on a small matrix presented on a taskirrelevant backdrop of grouped elements. The backdrop grouping changed or stayed the same independently of any change in the target. Congruency effects produced by changes in backdrop grouping on target-change judgments indicate that the backdrop grouping was accomplished under inattention. The results showed congruency effects when grouping formed columns/rows by proximity but not by shape similarity, and when grouping into a distinct shape by collinearity did not involve element segregation. No congruency effects were found when grouping into a shape by collinearity or connectedness involved element segregation, except when connectedness was combined with color similarity. These results suggest that attentional demands depend on the combination of grouping principles and the complexity of the processes involved in the organization. These findings provide further support for the view that perceptual organization is a multiplicity of processes that vary in attentional demands.

Effects of Temporal Expectations on the Perception of Motion Gestalts

“…Similarly, our results show that common-fate grouping of coherently moving dots has a particular time course that is distinct of other types of grouping. These findings support the current view that perceptual grouping is not a unitary construct and that the operations underlying the various types of grouping have to be studied case by case (Wagemans, 2018;Rashal et al, 2017;Kimchi, 2009).…”

“…A number of psychophysical and ERP studies established different dynamics for different types of groupings. For example, grouping by proximity is achieved earlier than grouping by similarity, which involves more complex processing ( Villalba-García et al, 2018;Rashal et al, 2017;Kimchi, 2009;Han, 2004;Ben-Av & Sagi, 1995). Similarly, our results show that common-fate grouping of coherently moving dots has a particular time course that is distinct of other types of grouping.…”

“…The expectation-related enhancement of coherence discrimination for intermediate levels may be reduced because of this competition between integration and segregation. Previous studies have suggested that integration and segregation interact differently with attention, for example, that figure-ground segregation demands attention when there is competition for figural assignment (Rashal, Yeshurun, & Kimchi, 2017;Kimchi, 2009). This may explain the nonlinear modulation of the response errors (Figure 3) and N2 results (Figure 7B).…”

Visual Awareness Is Essential for Grouping Based on Mirror Symmetry

“…Recent research has examined whether visual awareness is required for perceptual organization to occur. The results indicate that it depends on the specific organization processes, which is quite plausible given that perceptual organization is a multiplicity of processes differing in their time courses, attentional demands, and developmental trajectories [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. The methods used to suppress the stimulus from awareness also play a role, as they may vary in the level at which the suppression takes place [37,38].…”

Charting the Diversity of Strategic Processes in Visuospatial Short-Term Memory

“…Note that this relational encoding seems to be a strategic process rather than an automatic feature of visual processing (Udale, Farrell, & Kent, 2018; Woodman, Vogel, & Luck, 2012). Attention usually appears to be necessary for the encoding of relations between items, although this can vary across paradigms (Gmeindl, Nelson, Wiggin, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2011; Jiang et al, 2000, 2004; Rashal, Yeshurun, & Kimchi, 2017).…”