Oxford Handbooks Online 2014
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686858.013.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Emergent features and feature combination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As an example of the things class of models, some theories of texture segmentation represent texture by a set of discrete features, called textons. Whether segmentation occurs depends on whether two abutting textures contain the same number of attributes, like vertical lines, endstops, closed curves, and arrow junctions (Julesz, 1981; Julesz & Bergen, 1983; Pomerantz & Cragin, 2015). On the other hand, filter–nonlinearity–filter models of texture segmentation (Landy & Bergen, 1991; Malik & Perona, 1990; Rosenholtz, 2000), as well as texture representations based on image statistics (Heeger & Bergen, 1995; Portilla & Simoncelli, 2000), fall into the class of stuff models of texture perception.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an example of the things class of models, some theories of texture segmentation represent texture by a set of discrete features, called textons. Whether segmentation occurs depends on whether two abutting textures contain the same number of attributes, like vertical lines, endstops, closed curves, and arrow junctions (Julesz, 1981; Julesz & Bergen, 1983; Pomerantz & Cragin, 2015). On the other hand, filter–nonlinearity–filter models of texture segmentation (Landy & Bergen, 1991; Malik & Perona, 1990; Rosenholtz, 2000), as well as texture representations based on image statistics (Heeger & Bergen, 1995; Portilla & Simoncelli, 2000), fall into the class of stuff models of texture perception.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Experiment 2 , we investigated whether emergent features could explain the advantage of uniform tilts (present versus absent) for target discrimination when all lines were of the same contrast polarity. An emergent feature refers to the salient property of a spatial configuration resulting from the combination of basic features ( Pomerantz & Cragin, 2014 ). Previous studies have already shown that specific line configurations may elicit emergent features such as parallelism or collinearity ( Pomerantz, Chapman, Flynn, Noe, & Yingxue, 2017 ; Stupina, 2011 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The goal of the present study was to examine how flexible emergent features are, that is, to determine the extent to which the perception of emergent features is tolerant to changes in the arrangement of their constituent local elements. We manipulated the arrangement of local elements within stimulus arrays, and assessed the extent to which the CSE, an index of stimulus configurality (Pomerantz and Cragin, 2015), can be obtained across a range of deviations from an ideal configuration. We used behavioral performance to establish whether increasing configurality produces faster and more accurate responses; we used neuroimaging to determine where increasing configurality produces increased activation along the ventral visual pathway.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A set of stimuli were developed that continuously and parametrically varied the deviation of their constituent features from symmetric and parallel orientations. We chose to focus on symmetry and parallelism, as they are two prime examples of emergent features often discussed in the context of the CSE (e.g., Pomerantz and Garner, 1973; Pomerantz et al, 1977; Mersch, 2014; Pomerantz and Cragin, 2015). This allowed us to explore the extent to which emergent features are continuously perceived, and correspondingly, how behavioral outcomes (response times, accuracy) are impacted by degrees of configurality (e.g., continuous degradation or a dichotomous break?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%