Biasing Effects in Ambiguous Figures: Removal or Fixation of Critical Features Can Affect Perception

The role of so-called critical features in the perception of ambiguous figures was examined in two experiments. In the first, selective removal of certain features was found to bias the initial perception of the wife mother-in-law figure. In the second, the position of the fixation point was found to influence the dominance of aspect of the wife mother-in- law figure. During an extended viewing period, when the fixation point was close to a critical feature (as defined in the first experiment), the tendency was for the figure to be less ambiguous, and for large figures to be less ambiguous than small. The effects are discussed with reference to the hypothesis that changes of visual attention between different features underlie the perceptual alternations of the figure.

[1]  A. Treisman.  Focused attention in the perception and retrieval of multidimensional stimuli , 1977 .

[2]  B. Gibson,et al.  Directing spatial attention within an object: altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Global precedence in attended and nonattended objects. , 1988 .

[4]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[5]  B. R. Bugelski,et al.  The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. , 1961, Canadian journal of psychology.

[6]  Miguel A. García-Pérez,et al.  Visual inhomogeneity and eye movements in multistable perception , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  I Rock,et al.  Do Young Children Reverse Ambiguous Figures? , 1994, Perception.

[8]  I Rock,et al.  Further Evidence of Failure of Reversal of Ambiguous Figures by Uninformed Subjects , 1992, Perception.

[9]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[10]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effect of background information on object identification. , 1989 .

[11]  Nobuo Kawabata,et al.  Visual fixation points and depth perception , 1978, Vision Research.

[12]  E. Boring.  A new ambiguous figure. , 1930 .

[13]  VEIJO VIRSU,et al.  Determination of perspective reversals , 1975, Nature.

[14]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  I. Biederman.  Perceiving Real-World Scenes , 1972, Science.

[16]  C. A. Burnham,et al.  The first glimpse determines the perception of an ambiguous figure , 1975 .

[17]  A. J. Mistlin,et al.  Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[18]  J. Findlay,et al.  The Relationship between Eye Movements and Spatial Attention , 1986, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[19]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Disambiguating Ambiguous Figures by Selective Attention , 1985 .

[20]  R. Leeper.  A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning—the Development of Sensory Organization , 1935 .

[21]  J. Hoffman.  Hierarchical stages in the processing of visual information , 1975 .

[22]  R. Lipman,et al.  Some Factors Affecting Necker Cube Reversal Rate , 1962, Perceptual and motor skills.

[23]  P. Goolkasian.  Ambiguous figures: role of context and critical features. , 1987, The Journal of general psychology.

[24]  Krista L. Horlitz,et al.  Satiation or availability? Effects of attention, memory, and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figures , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  The Schröder staircase: A new perspective , 1979 .

[26]  tephen E. Palmer.  The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[27]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical methods for psychology, 3rd ed. , 1992 .

[28]  Jack Botwinick,et al.  Husband and Father-in-Law: A Reversible Figure , 1961 .

[29]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[30]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Attention to adjacent and separate positions in space: An electrophysiological analysis , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  R H Cormack,et al.  Necker Cube Perspective Dominance as a Function of Retinal Disparity , 1968, Perceptual and motor skills.

[32]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for sustained and transient detectors in human vision , 1973, The Journal of physiology.

[33]  Y. Tsal.  Effects of Attention on Perception of Features and Figural Organisation , 1994, Perception.

[34]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Selective attention: Noise suppression or signal enhancement? , 1974 .

[35]  Harris Jp,et al.  How does adaptation to disparity affect the perception of reversible figures , 1980 .

[36]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[38]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out” , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  D. Reisberg,et al.  General mental resources and perceptual judgments. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  Orienting of Visual Attention , 1992 .

[42]  N Weisstein,et al.  A new perceptual context-superiority effect: line segments are more visible against a figure than against a ground. , 1982, Science.

[43]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures , 1977 .

[44]  B. Gibson,et al.  Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Allocation of attention in the visual field. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  J. Hoffman,et al.  Spatial selectivity in visual search , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and the detection of signals. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology.

[48]  L. Robertson,et al.  The effect of visual angle on global and local reaction times depends on the set of visual angles presented , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  The Recency Effect in the Perception of Ambiguous Figures , 1985, Perception.

[50]  The effect of size on the perception of ambiguous figures , 1991 .

[51]  D. Broadbent.  Task combination and selective intake of information. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

[52]  J. Hoffman,et al.  The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  B Julesz,et al.  Masking in Visual Recognition: Effects of Two-Dimensional Filtered Noise , 1973, Science.

[54]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[55]  L Stark,et al.  Eye Movements during the Viewing of Necker Cubes , 1978, Perception.