Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process?

Visualimage segmentation is the process by which the visual system groups features that are part of a single shape. Is image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? In Experiments 1 and 2, we presented subjects with two overlapping shapes and asked them to determine whether two probed locations were on the same shape or on different shapes. The availability of top-down support was manipulated by presenting either upright or rotated letters. Subjects were fastest to respond when the shapes corresponded to familiar shapes—the upright letters. In Experiment 3, we used a variant of this segmentation task to rule out the possibility that subjects performed same/different judgments after segmentation and recognition of both letters. Finally, in Experiment 4,we ruled out the possibility that the advantage for upright letters was merely due to faster recognition of upright letters relative to rotated letters. The results suggested that the previous effects were not due to faster recognition of upright letters; stimulus familiarity influenced segmentation per se. The results are discussed in terms of an interactive model of visual image segmentation.

[1]  C. L. M.,et al.  Outlines of Psychology , 1891, Nature.

[2]  Allan Birnbaum,et al.  Combining Independent Tests of Significance , 1954 .

[3]  G. M. Reicher.  Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  On the Logic of Perception , 1969 .

[5]  D. D. Wheeler.  Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[6]  David L. Waltz,et al.  Understanding Line drawings of Scenes with Shadows , 1975 .

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

[8]  D Marr,et al.  Early processing of visual information. , 1976, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[9]  James L. McClelland.  On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. , 1979 .

[10]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of inattention on form perception. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  W Prinzmetal,et al.  Principles of feature integration in visual perception , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

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

[14]  J. Fodor.  The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[15]  W. Prinzmetal,et al.  Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  P. Jolicoeur.  The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[18]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition : Psychological and Biological Models , 1986 .

[19]  S. Ullman,et al.  Curve tracing: A possible basic operation in the perception of spatial relations , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[20]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[21]  Rakesh Mohan,et al.  Book review: PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION AND VISUAL RECOGNITION by David G. Lowe (Kluwer Academic Publishers) , 1987, SGAR.

[22]  S. Kosslyn.  Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. , 1987, Psychological review.

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

[24]  M. Gardner,et al.  USING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[25]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Connectionist Models and Their Properties , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[27]  S. Ullman.  Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[28]  M. V. Rossum,et al.  In Neural Computation , 2022 .

[29]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  M. Peterson,et al.  Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal: which route counts? , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  The initial identification of figure-ground relationships: Contributions from shape recognition processes , 1991 .

[32]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[33]  Leif H. Finkel,et al.  Object Discrimination Based on Depth-from-Occlusion , 1992, Neural Computation.

[34]  Richard S. Zemel,et al.  Learning to Segment Images Using Dynamic Feature Binding , 1991, Neural Computation.

[35]  S. Palmer.  Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[37]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  A solution of the figure-ground problem for biological vision , 1993, Neural Networks.

[38]  B. Gibson,et al.  Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cuing paradigm. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[41]  I Rock,et al.  On the nature and order of organizational processing: A reply to Peterson , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[43]  B. Gibson,et al.  Must Figure-Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril , 1994 .

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

[45]  L. Finkel,et al.  Intermediate-Level Visual Representations and the Construction of Surface Perception , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[47]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition , 2012 .