Display-wide influences on figure–ground perception: The case of symmetry

Figural properties are prioritized for search under conditions of uncertainty: Setting boundary conditions on claims that figures automatically attract attention

“…This pattern of results is the opposite of what one would expect if attention were automatically drawn to the convex figure closest to fixation. Because convex regions are highly likely to be perceived as figures in front of a surface interpolated across the concave regions in 8-region displays (Goldreich & Peterson, 2012;Mojica & Peterson, 2014), these results also indicate that results showing that attention is automatically drawn to near surfaces (e.g., Lester, et al, 2009;West, et al, 2013) Lehmkuhle and Fox (1980) showed that depth separation reduces the masking effect of contours.…”

“…1 This is the standard method used by investigators to ensure that the convex and concave regions are equal in area, and are truncated equally often. See Mojica and Peterson (2014) for evidence that the shape of the outer borders is critical. 2 We use the term "Region Type" for Experiment 2 because the stimuli included regions bounded on both sides by cove (or concave borders).…”

“…Had this been the case, the advantage for targets on the concave side of the border would have been larger at longer SOAs. 4 This percentage is a pure index of the effect of convexity unaided by another property that influences figure-ground perception is 8-region displays: The uniform fill in the concave regions in 8-region displays affords the interpretation that the concave regions are portions of a single surface that can be perceived a ground to convex figures (Goldreich & Peterson, 2012;Mojica & Peterson, 2014). 5 From here on in, we refer to the convex or concave side of the central border rather than to convex and concave regions because in bipartite displays, only the central border is articulated.…”

Redundant Symmetry Influences Perceptual Grouping (as Measured by Rotational Linkage)

“…However, it has been known since the early work of Bahnsen [12], a student of Rubin [13], that a symmetric shape is more likely to be seen as a figure than an asymmetric one in a figure-ground task. This has been confirmed more recently by Peterson and Gibson [14] and Mojika and Peterson [15], who also showed that the effect of symmetry on figure-ground resolution was enhanced when several alternating symmetric regions were added to the display. Kanizsa and Gerbino [16] reported that convexity overrides symmetry in eliciting perception of figure, leading Pomerantz and Kubovy [11] to argue that since it is so easily overridden, symmetry probably plays little role in organization and only becomes available after elements are organized into units on other grounds.…”

“…Kanizsa and Gerbino [16] reported that convexity overrides symmetry in eliciting perception of figure, leading Pomerantz and Kubovy [11] to argue that since it is so easily overridden, symmetry probably plays little role in organization and only becomes available after elements are organized into units on other grounds. The Mojika and Peterson's [15] study showed, however, that with appropriate controls, symmetry is as effective as convexity.…”