The impact of configural superiority on the processing of spatial information.

Abstract

The impact of context on perception has been well documented for over a century. In some cases, the introduction of context to a set of target features may produce a unified percept, leading to a quicker and more accurate classification; a configural superiority effect (Pomerantz, Sager, & Stoever, 1977). Although this effect has been well characterized in terms of the stimulus features that produce the effect, the specific impact context has on the spatial strategies adopted by observers when making perceptual judgments remains unclear. Here, we sought to address this question by using the methods of response classification and ideal observer analysis. In our main experiment, we used a stimulus set known to produce the configural superiority effect and found that although observers were faster in the presence of context, they were actually less efficient at extracting stimulus information. This surprising result was attributable to the use of a spatial strategy in which observers relied on redundant, noninformative features in the presence of context. A control experiment ruled out the possibility that the mere presence of added context led to these strategic shifts. Our results support previous notions about the nature of the perceptual shifts that are induced by the configural superiority effect. However, they also show that configural processing is more nuanced than originally thought: Although observers may be faster at making judgments when context induces the percept of a configural whole, there appears to be a hidden cost in terms of the efficiency with which information is used. (PsycINFO Database Record

Gestalts at threshold could reveal Gestalts as predictions

“…Upon the conception of the study that would lead to the present manuscript and the previously mentioned one, the authors had two goals. One of these was to replicate and extend the study by Bratch et al 78 , looking at clarifying the claims of less efficient information processing and higher thresholds for CSE-inducing stimuli when compared to their constituent parts (a claim that is in conflict with the previous literature on the matter, see 77 ). Another key goal we had was to properly assess how contrast and saliency manipulations could help us understand the processing of configural Gestalts and potentially unveil a differential role of predictive processing for these stimuli (one of the main goals of the current paper).…”

Configural superiority for varying contrast levels

“…Participants were positioned in a dark room at a viewing distance of 57 cm from the monitor by means of a chin rest. Stimulus presentation and response registration was controlled by Bratch et al (2016). Stimulus contrast is expressed in root mean squared (RMS) contrast.…”

“…We used very similar stimuli to the ones used in Bratch et al (2016), who modeled their stimuli after Pomerantz et al (1977) (see Fig. 3).…”

“…The present study was motivated by the results reported by (Bratch et al, 2016). Here, the authors used the configural superiority effect (CSE) with the classic triangle and arrow displays (Pomerantz, Sager, & Stoever, 1977).…”

“…The results reported in Bratch et al are a potentially interesting anomaly in a literature where detection benefits for Gestalts are consistently documented. The goal of the current study was to further probe the effects observed in Bratch et al (2016) and to better understand the effect of contrast manipulations on the processing of Gestalt stimuli. Our main point of departure is the fact that Bratch et al measured contrast thresholds adaptively with a staircase method.…”