Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: context and convexity.

Convexity has long been considered a potent cue as to which of two regions on opposite sides of an edge is the shaped figure. Experiment 1 shows that for a single edge, there is only a weak bias toward seeing the figure on the convex side. Experiments 1-3 show that the bias toward seeing the convex side as figure increases as the number of edges delimiting alternating convex and concave regions increases, provided that the concave regions are homogeneous in color. The results of Experiments 2 and 3 rule out a probability summation explanation for these context effects. Taken together, the results of Experiments 1-3 show that the homogeneity versus heterogeneity of the convex regions is irrelevant. Experiment 4 shows that homogeneity of alternating regions is not sufficient for context effects; a cue that favors the perception of the intervening regions as figures is necessary. Thus homogeneity alone does not alone operate as a background cue. We interpret our results within a model of figure-ground perception in which shape properties on opposite sides of an edge compete for representation and the competitive strength of weak competitors is further reduced when they are homogeneous.

[1]  O. Reiser,et al.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

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

[3]  Stephen Wallace,et al.  Figure and Ground , 1982 .

[4]  C Bundesen,et al.  Color segregation and visual search , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Separating Figure from Ground with a Parallel Network , 1986, Perception.

[6]  A. Brookes,et al.  The Concave Cusp as a Determiner of Figure—Ground , 1988, Perception.

[7]  D. Hubel,et al.  Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. , 1988, Science.

[8]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[9]  B. Gibson,et al.  Shape Recognition Inputs To Figure-Ground Organization in Three-Dimensional Displays , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[11]  S. Blackburn,et al.  Contrast as a depth cue , 1994, Vision Research.

[12]  S Grossberg,et al.  3-D vision and figure-ground separation by visual cortex , 2010, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  M. Peterson.  Object Recognition Processes Can and Do Operate Before Figure–Ground Organization , 1994 .

[14]  Victor A. F. Lamme.  The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[15]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Contextual Modulation in Primary Visual Cortex , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  J Driver,et al.  Figure-ground segmentation and edge-assignment in short-term visual matching. , 1996 .

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

[18]  P J Kellman,et al.  Surface Completion Complements Boundary Interpolation in the Visual Integration of Partly Occluded Objects , 1997, Perception.

[19]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: an interactive account. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  C. Connor,et al.  Responses to contour features in macaque area V4. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  Philip J Kellman,et al.  Surface integration influences depth discrimination , 2000, Vision Research.

[22]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Spatial distribution of contextual interactions in primary visual cortex and in visual perception. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[24]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  On Figures, Grounds, and Varieties of Surface Completion , 2003 .

[25]  Mary A Peterson,et al.  Implicit memory for novel figure-ground displays includes a history of cross-border competition. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  R. Kimchi,et al.  Perceptual organization in vision : behavioral and neural perspectives , 2003 .

[27]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[28]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  Memory and Learning in Figure-Ground Perception , 2003 .

[29]  C. Bundesen,et al.  A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology. , 2005, Psychological review.

[30]  J. Enns,et al.  The edge complex: Implicit memory for figure assignment in shape perception , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  S. Kastner,et al.  Stimulus context modulates competition in human extrastriate cortex , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[32]  D. Knill.  Learning Bayesian priors for depth perception. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[33]  Stephen E Palmer,et al.  Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  S. Kastner,et al.  Stimulus similarity modulates competitive interactions in human visual cortex. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[35]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Local figure-ground cues are valid for natural images. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[36]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Brain States: Top-Down Influences in Sensory Processing , 2007, Neuron.

[37]  Lora T. Likova,et al.  Occipital network for figure/ground organization , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[38]  Mary A Peterson,et al.  Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure-ground perception. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  Andrew J. Mojica,et al.  Context effects in figure-ground perception: The role of biased competition, suppression and long-range connections , 2010 .