Abstract
We investigated whether the lower region effect on figure-ground organization (Vecera, Vogel, & Woodman, 2002) would generalize to contextual depth planes in vertical orientations, as is predicted by a theoretical analysis based on the ecological statistics of edges arising from objects that are attached to surfaces of support. Observers viewed left/right ambiguous figure-ground displays that occluded middle sections of four types of contextual inducers: two types of attached, receding, vertical planes (walls) that used linear perspective and/or texture gradients to induce perceived depth and two types of similar trapezoidal control figures that used either uniform color or random texture to reduce or eliminate perceived depth. The results showed a reliable bias toward seeing as “figure” the side of the figure-ground display that was attached to the receding depth plane, but no such bias for the corresponding side in either of the control conditions. The results are interpreted as being consistent with the attachment hypothesis that the lower region cue to figure-ground organization results from ecological biases in edge interpretation that arise when objects are attached to supporting surfaces in the terrestrial gravitational field.
Article PDF
References
Bahnsen, P. (1928). Eine Untersuchung über Symmetrie und Asymmetrie bei visuellen Wahrnehmungen.Zeitschrift für Psychologie,108, 129–154.
Bian, Z., Braunstein, M. L., &Andersen, G. J. (2005). The ground dominance effect in the perception of 3-D layout.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 802–815.
Burge, J., Peterson, M. A., &Palmer, S. E. (2005). Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception.Journal of Vision,5, 534–542. Available at journalofvision.org/5/6/5/, doi:10.1167/5.6.5.
Driver, J., &Baylis, G. C. (1996). Edge-assignment and figure-ground segmentation in short-term visual matching.Cognitive Psychology,31, 248–306.
Fowlkes, C., Martin, D., & Malik, J. (2001). Understanding Gestalt cues and ecological statistics using a database of human segmented images. Paper presented at the Third Workshop on Perceptual Organization in Computer Vision, Vancouver, BC.
Gibson, J. J. (1950).The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition.Cognition,18, 65–96.
Hulleman, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (2004). A new cue to figure-ground coding: Top-bottom polarity.Vision Research,44, 2779–2791.
Kanizsa, G., &Gerbino, W. (1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In M. Henle (Ed.),Vision and artifact (pp. 25–32). New York: Springer.
Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
McCarley, J. S., &He, Z. J. (2000). Asymmetry in 3-D perceptual organization: Ground-like surface superior to ceiling-like surface.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 540–549.
Meng, J. C., &Sedgwick, H. A. (2001). Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 1–15.
Ooi, T. L., Wu, B., &He, Z. J. (2001). Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon.Nature,414, 197–200.
Palmer, S. E. (1999).Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Palmer, S. E. (2002). Perceptual organization in vision. In H. Pashler & S. Yantis (Eds.),Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 1. Sensation and perception (pp. 177–234). New York: Wiley.
Peterson, M. A. (1994). Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization.Current Directions in Psychological Science,3, 105–111.
Peterson, M. A. (1999). What’s in a stage name? Comment on Vecera and O’Reilly (1998).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 276–286.
Philbeck, J. W., &Loomis, J. M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 72–85.
Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
Rock, I., &Leaman, R. (1963). An experimental analysis of visual symmetry.Acta Psychologica,21, 171–183.
Ross-Sheehy, S. M., Oakes, L. M., & Vecera, S. P. (2003, October). Figure-ground segregation in human infants: Sitters versus non-sitters. Poster presented at the 2003 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.
Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. C. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds.),Readings in perception (pp. 194–203). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published 1915)
Vecera, S. P. (2004). The reference frame of figure-ground assignment.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 909–915.
Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., &Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment.Psychological Science,15, 20–26.
Vecera, S. P., Vogel, E. K., &Woodman, G. F. (2002). Lower region: A new cue for figure-ground assignment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131, 194–205.
Wiser, M. (1981, August). The role of intrinsic axes in shape recognition. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Berkeley, CA.
Zuckerman, C. B., &Rock, I. (1957). A reappraisal of the roles of past experience and innate organizing processes in visual perception.Psychological Bulletin,54, 269–296.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grants BCS 99-10727 and BCS 03-39171 from the National Science Foundation, awarded to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vecera, S.P., Palmer, S.E. Grounding the figure: Surface attachment influences figure-ground organization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 563–569 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193963
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193963