title: The reference frame of figure-ground assignment.
abstract: Figure-ground assignment involves determining which visual regions are foreground figures and which are backgrounds. Although figure-ground processes provide important inputs to high-level vision, little is known about the reference frame in which the figure's features and parts are defined. Computational approaches have suggested a retinally based, viewer-centered reference frame for figure-ground assignment, but figural assignment could also be computed on the basis of environmental regularities in an environmental reference frame. The present research used a newly discovered cue, lower region, to examine the reference frame of figure-ground assignment. Possible reference frames were misaligned by changing the orientation of viewers by having them tilt their heads (Experiments 1 and 2) or turn them upside down (Experiment 3). The results of these experiments indicated that figure-ground perception followed the orientation of the viewer, suggesting a viewer-centered reference frame for figure-ground assignment.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407, USA. shaun-vecera@uiowa.edu
authors.forename: Shaun P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Vecera
mesh_terms: D004777:Environment; D006801:Humans; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011930:Reaction Time; D014796:Visual Perception
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1987 Apr;94(2):115-47
references.pmid: 3575582
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Apr;24(2):441-62
references.pmid: 9554093
references.citation: Science. 1999 May 14;284(5417):1165-8
references.pmid: 10325226
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1996 Dec;31(3):248-306
references.pmid: 8975684
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1986 Aug;12(3):324-30
references.pmid: 2943860
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1997 Jul;104(3):618-58
references.pmid: 9243966
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Dec;21(6):1494-505
references.pmid: 7490590
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1987 Apr;94(2):148-75
references.pmid: 3575583
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1995 Mar;2(1):55-82
references.pmid: 24203590
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Jun;26(3):1221-31
references.pmid: 10884019
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Jun;131(2):194-205
references.pmid: 12049239
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1995 Feb;15(2):1605-15
references.pmid: 7869121
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2001 Mar 1;21(5):1698-709
references.pmid: 11222659
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1989 Apr;21(2):233-82
references.pmid: 2706928
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Jul;67(1-2):1-20
references.pmid: 9735534
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Jan;15(1):20-6
references.pmid: 14717827
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Dec;19(6):1162-82
references.pmid: 8294886
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2000 Sep 1;20(17):6594-611
references.pmid: 10964965
references.citation: Cognition. 1984 Dec;18(1-3):1-63
references.pmid: 6396030
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1987 Apr;19(2):280-93
references.pmid: 3581759