Concavities count for less in symmetry perception

We investigated the relative importance of convexities (protrusions) and concavities (indentations) for the perception of shape. On the one hand, it has been suggested that convexities determine the shape of an object, whereas concavities merely act as “perceptual glue” between the convexities. On the other hand, it has been argued that concavities are more salient than convexities. We show that participants find it easier to detect asymmetry in a 2-D silhouette when there is a mismatch between the shapes of convexities on either side of the axis of symmetry than when there is a mismatch between the shapes of concavities. This is the case even when the concavities are closest to the axis of symmetry, and despite the usual bias toward this axis in symmetry perception. We suggest that the actual shape of concavities is less important in symmetry perception, because the main role of concavities is to act as part boundaries in the representation of the shape of objects.

[1]  Manish Singh,et al.  What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. , 2005, Journal of vision.

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

[3]  Stephen M. Pizer,et al.  Object representation by cores: Identifying and representing primitive spatial regions , 1995, Vision Research.

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

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

[6]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  Detection of change in shape and its relation to part structure. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[7]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Detection of visual symmetries. , 1995, Spatial vision.

[8]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Detection of change in shape: an advantage for concavities , 2003, Cognition.

[9]  J. Koenderink,et al.  The Shape of Smooth Objects and the Way Contours End , 1982, Perception.

[10]  S. Palmer,et al.  Orientation and symmetry: effects of multiple, rotational, and near symmetries. , 1978, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

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

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

[13]  J. Pokorny Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1972 .

[14]  C. Olivers,et al.  Symmetry and selective attention: A dissociation between effortless perception and serial search , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  J. Hulleman,et al.  Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[17]  Jon Driver,et al.  Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition within single visual shapes , 1994 .

[18]  H. Barlow,et al.  The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays , 1979, Vision Research.

[19]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Is There an Assignment of Top and Bottom during Symmetry Perception? , 2004, Perception.