The shape of holes

The shape of holes can be recognized as accurately as the shape of objects (Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), yet the area enclosed by a hole is a background region, and it can be demonstrated that background regions are not represented as having shape. What is therefore the shape of a hole, if any? To resolve this apparent paradox, we suggest that the shape of a hole is available indirectly from the shape of the surrounding object. We exploited the fact that observers are faster at judging the position of convex vertices than concave ones (Perception 30 (2001) 1295), and using a figural manipulation of figure/ground we found a reversal of the relative speeds when the same contours were presented as holes instead of objects. If contours were perceived as belonging to the hole rather than the surrounding object then there would have been no qualitative difference in responses to the object and hole stimuli. We conclude that the contour bounding a hole is automatically assigned to the surrounding object, and that a change in perception of a region from object to hole always drastically changes the encoded information. We discuss the many interesting aspects of holes as a subject of study in different disciplines and predict that much insight especially about shape will continue to come from holes.

[1]  Jon Driver,et al.  Perception of symmetry and repetition within and across visual shapes: Part-descriptions and object-based attention , 2001 .

[2]  K. Koffka.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[3]  M. Bertamini,et al.  No within-object advantage for detection of rotation. , 2002, Acta psychologica.

[4]  M. Peterson,et al.  On what is bound in figures and grounds , 2001 .

[5]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[6]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient , 2000, Vision Research.

[7]  M. K. Albert.  Cue interactions, border ownership and illusory contours , 2001, Vision Research.

[8]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[10]  N Bruno,et al.  Amodal completion of partly occluded surfaces: is there a mosaic stage? , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[12]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[13]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[14]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Mary Henle,et al.  Vision and artifact , 1977 .

[16]  S E Palmer,et al.  Of Holes and Wholes: The Perception of Surrounded Regions , 2001, Perception.

[17]  K Nakayama,et al.  Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces. , 1992, Science.

[18]  Jon Driver,et al.  Edge-Assignment and Figure–Ground Segmentation in Short-Term Visual Matching , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

[20]  B. Gibson.  Visual attention and objects: one versus two or convex versus concave? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  M. Bertamini,et al.  The Importance of Being Convex: An Advantage for Convexity when Judging Position , 2001, Perception.

[22]  R. Basri,et al.  The role of convexity in perceptual completion: beyond good continuation , 1999, Vision Research.

[23]  Alan L. Yuille,et al.  The Generic Viewpoint Assumption and Planar Bias , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[24]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[25]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Salience of visual parts , 1997, Cognition.

[26]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  H Hecht,et al.  Perceiving topological structure of 2-D patterns. , 1998, Acta psychologica.

[28]  Lin Chen,et al.  Perceptual organization: To reverse back the inverted (upside-down) question of feature binding , 2001 .

[29]  M K Albert,et al.  The Generic Viewpoint Assumption and Bayesian Inference , 2000, Perception.

[30]  F. Attneave.  Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[31]  Walter Gerbino,et al.  Convexity and Symmetry in Figure-Ground Organization , 1976 .

[32]  J J Koenderink,et al.  What Does the Occluding Contour Tell Us about Solid Shape? , 1984, Perception.

[33]  Jon Driver,et al.  Obligatory edge-assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. , 1995 .

[34]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Visual surface representation: a critical link between lower-level and higher level vision , 1995 .

[35]  H. Ross,et al.  Information Concentration along the Boundary Contours of Naturally Shaped Solid Objects , 2001, Perception.

[36]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  I. Rock.  The Logic of Perception , 1983 .

[38]  H. Barlow.  Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology by Stephen E. Palmer , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  W. D. Craft,et al.  Foundations of spatial vision: from retinal images to perceived shapes. , 2000, Psychological review.

[40]  G. Baylis,et al.  Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[41]  Achille C. Varzi,et al.  Holes and Other Superficialities , 1994 .

[42]  Luc Florack,et al.  Front-End Vision: A Multiscale Geometry Engine , 2000, Biologically Motivated Computer Vision.

[43]  Z Kourtzi,et al.  Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 2001, Science.

[44]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  A Search Asymmetry Reversed by Figure-Ground Assignment , 2000, Psychological science.

[45]  S. Palmer.  Vision Science : Photons to Phenomenology , 1999 .

[46]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Information processing models generating lognormally distributed reaction times , 1993 .

[47]  G. Baylis,et al.  The figure has a shape, but the ground does not: evidence from a priming paradigm. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.