Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours

Peterson, Mary A.; Gibson, Bradley S.

doi:10.3758/bf03206951

Cited by 143 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first indication that some object recognition processes might be operating before figure-ground organization was obtained in an experiment in which observers viewed 2-D figureground stimuli for long durations and reported about reversals of perceived figure-ground organization (Peterson, Harvey, & Weidenbacher, 1991). Since that initial discovery, we have replicated these effects on numerous occasions (e.g., Peterson & Gibson, 1993, 1994b; we have extended our reversal findings to 3-D displays (Peterson & Gibson, 1993), and we have found evidence that object recognition influences extend to initial perceived organization as well as reversal (Gibson & Peterson, 1994;Peterson & Gibson, 1991, 1993, 1994a. Rather than describing the results of those experiments in more detail here, I will discuss our proposal regarding how object recognition processes can operate before figure-ground relationships have been established, because that proposal is most relevant to the question of whether or not contour parsing procedures must follow the determination of figure-ground relationships.…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

“…We have proposed that "pre figural" shape recognition processes can proceed in parallel with other processes that contribute to figure-ground organization only by operating on edges that are detected quite early in processing. Experimental results reveal evidence that prefigural shape recognition processes can operate on luminance edges, on outlines, and on subjective contours (Peterson & Gibson, 1994b), but not on stereo-only edges (as in random-dot stereograms; Peterson & Gibson, 1993); the latter are available only following figure-ground organization and, hence, cannot serve as a platform for processes that contribute to figure-ground organization or reversal (Peterson & Gibson, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The proper placement of uniform connectedness

Peterson

1994

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The proper placement of uniform connectedness

Peterson

1994

Psychon Bull Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In numerous studies, Peterson and her colleagues (Peterson & Gibson, 1991, 1993, 1994a, 1994bPetersonetal., 1991;see Peterson, 1994, for an overview) found that object or shape-recognition processes contributed to figureground organization. They concluded that figure-ground organization was not necessarily a precursor to object (or shape) recognition, as would be assumed by more traditional, hierarchical models ofvisual processing (e.g., Biederman, 1987;Kosslyn, 1987;Marr, 1982;Neisser, 1967).…”

Section: An Alternative Model?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process?

Vecera

Farah

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

144

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visualimage segmentation is the process by which the visual system groups features that are part of a single shape. Is image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? In Experiments 1 and 2, we presented subjects with two overlapping shapes and asked them to determine whether two probed locations were on the same shape or on different shapes. The availability of top-down support was manipulated by presenting either upright or rotated letters. Subjects were fastest to respond when the shapes corresponded to familiar shapes-the upright letters. InExperiment 3, we used a variant of this segmentation task to rule out the possibility that subjects performed same/different judgments after segmentation and recognition of both letters. Finally,in Experiment 4, we ruled out the possibility that the advantage for upright letters was merely due to faster recognition of upright letters relative to rotated letters. The results suggested that the previous effects were not due to faster recognition of upright letters; stimulus familiarity influenced segmentation per se. The results are discussed in terms of an interactive model of visual image segmentation.Imagine a rider atop a horse. There are clearly points ofoverlap between the two objects, such as where the rider's legs occlude the side ofthe horse. For the visual system to recognize these two distinct objects, each visual object representation stored in visual memory must receive input from the regions of the visual field that correspond to that object and only to that object. Visual image segmentation is the process by which the visual system groups or "binds" locations and features that are part of a single shape. Is image segmentation a purely bottomup, stimulus-driven process or can stored knowledge of objects playa role in image segmentation?Both answers seem equally plausible. Bottom-up image segmentation is consistent with Fodor's (1983) claims of information encapsulation in the peripheral or input sys-

show abstract

“…Experiments indicating similarities between real and illusory contours in higher level characteristics such as reversibility ofambiguous figures (Shank & Walker, 1989), texture rarefaction (Bressan, 1987), facilitation ofamodal completion behind a figure (Bruno & Gerbino, 1987), and figureground organization (Peterson & Gibson, 1994) are necessary, serving to support the intuitive sense that illusory figures have the same cognitive significance as real figures, particularly with respect to stratification in depth, but such experiments do not provide much assistance in pinpointing the locus (or loci) of illusory contour formation. The large number of comparative studies precludes all but the briefest mention of most: Only comparisons with profound theoretical implications will be discussed here in detail.…”

Section: Psychophysical Similarities Between Real and Illusory Contoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illusory contours: Toward a neurally based perceptual theory

Lesher

1995

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although illusory contours were first described nearly a century ago, researchers have only recently begun to approach a consensus on the processes underlying their formation. Neurophysiological and psychophysical evidence indicate that neural mechanisms of the early visual cortex subserve illusory contour generation, although cognitive factors play important roles in determining the fmal percept. I summarize experiments concerning the determinants of illusory contour strength and form, concentrating on findings particularly relevant to modeling. After establishing arguments for the early generation of illusory contours, I provide an overview of formation theories, culminating with descriptions of neural models. The constraints that experimental data place on models are outlined, and neural models are evaluated with respect to these constraints. Throughout the review,I indicate where further experimental and modeling research are critical.Schumann introduced the first illusory contour, depicted in Figure 1a, in 1900, noting that a central "white rectangle with sharply defined contours appears, which objectively are not there." Schumann had discovered and noted two salient features of illusory figures: sharp edges in regions of homogeneous luminance, and a brightening within the figure. Perhaps because this stimulus failed to yield particularly convincing illusory contours, it was not until more than 50 years later that illusory contours became a topic for activeresearch. Although Ehrenstein (1941) demonstrated stimuli with salient illusory contours, it is remarkable that he failed to note their existence in the text of his article explicitly, commenting instead only on illusory brightening effects. Kanizsa's (1955) stunning figures, examples of which are depicted in Figures Iband 1c, produced extremely sharp, salient contours along with obvious brightening, initiating a wave of research.Although there have been a number ofexcellent illusory contour review papers Meyer & Petry, 1987;Parks, 1984), research advances in the psychophysical, neurophysiological, and modeling domains have been more than sufficient to mandate a new summary ofthe literature. Inthis review, I will not only present more recent data, but also employ an approach to the summaries that is markedly different from those previously taken. At the time of the earlier reviews, determination of the locus of formation of illusory contours was the central issue in illusory contour research, a fact reflected in the structure of the review papers. Experimental results were presented primarily in the historical context of supporting or refut-I would like to thank Ennio Mmgolla of Boston University for generously providing many helpful comments and suggestions during the development ofthis review.

show abstract

Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours

Cited by 143 publications

References 59 publications

The proper placement of uniform connectedness

The proper placement of uniform connectedness

Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process?

Illusory contours: Toward a neurally based perceptual theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About