Shape memory for intrinsic versus accidental holes.
Two experiments were performed to investigate the circumstances under which the shape of a visual hole is perceived and remembered. A distinction is made between an intrinsic hole, a surrounded region that is bordered on all sides by a single surface at a continuous depth, and an accidental hole, a surrounded region with borders belonging to multiple surfaces at discontinuous depths. In the first experiment, we demonstrated a marked memory advantage for intrinsic holes over both accidental holes and accidental parts when the accidental hole and part were nested within the intrinsic hole. Indeed, the accidental holes and parts appeared not to be remembered at all. In Experiment 2, we used nonnested display sets that ruled out the possibility that the results from the first experiments were due to any image-based differences and included solid objects, as well as intrinsic and accidental holes. The results showed that the shapes of intrinsic holes were still remembered better than those of accidental holes, but not as well as those of solid objects. The results are discussed in a framework of ecological validity, arguing that observers are likely to encode shapes that are invariant features of the environmental scene and not those that arise only from the coincidence of particular viewing conditions.
Nelson
Rolf
R
Psychology Department, Wheaton College, Norton, Massachusetts 02766, USA. rnelson@wheatonma.edu
Thierman
Jessica
J
Palmer
Stephen E
SE
D001288:Attention; D003867:Depth Perception; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D011939:Mental Recall; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010466:Perceptual Closure; D011601:Psychophysics