Perceptual comparison of features within and between objects: a new look.
The integration of spatially distinct elements into coherent objects is a fundamental process of vision. Yet notwithstanding an extensive literature on perceptual grouping, we still lack a clear understanding of the representational consequences of grouping disparate visual locations. We investigated this question in a feature comparison task; subjects identified matching features that belonged either to the same apparent object (within-object condition) or to different apparent objects (between-object condition). The stimulus was backward-masked at a variable SOA, to examine the consequences of changes in the perceptual organization of the segments over time. Critical to our aims, the two objects composing our stimulus were occluded to a variable extent, so that differences in within-object and between-object performance could be unequivocally related to the formation of objects. For certain stimulus arrangements, we found superior performance for within-object matches. The pattern of performance was, however, highly dependent on the stimulus orientation and was not related to the strength of the object percept. Using an oblique stimulus arrangement, we observed superior between-object comparisons that did vary with the object percept. We conclude that performance in our feature comparison task is strongly influenced by spatial relations between features that are independent of object properties. Indeed, this dominating effect may hide an underlying mechanism whereby formation of a visual object suppresses comparison of distinct features within the object.
Harrison
S J
SJ
SUNY State College of Optometry, Vision Sciences, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036, USA. sharrison@sunyopt.edu
Feldman
J
J
D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011601:Psychophysics
Percept Psychophys. 2007 Jul;69(5):816-27
17929702
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2002 Jan;109(1):57-74
11766140
Vision Res. 2007 Mar;47(6):845-60
17239914
Vision Res. 2004 Feb;44(3):257-77
14642898
J Exp Psychol. 1980 Jun;109(2):160-74
7381367
Percept Psychophys. 1992 Oct;52(4):355-75
1437470
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
Cognition. 2001 Jun;80(1-2):61-95
11245840
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1984 Dec;113(4):501-17
6240521
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1994 Jun;123(2):161-77
8014611
Trends Cogn Sci. 1997 Dec;1(9):346-52
21223945
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Vision Res. 1998 Aug;38(15-16):2489-505
9798011
J Vis. 2007 Jan 29;7(2):1.1-7
18217816
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Aug;24(4):1011-36
9706708
Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Jun;7(2):301-8
10909137
Percept Psychophys. 1999 Jan;61(1):31-49
10070198
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 17;103(42):15704-9
17030809
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Oct;29(5):897-918
14585013
Percept Psychophys. 1982 Jan;31(1):95-6
7070945
Exp Psychol. 2009;56(1):5-17
19261573
Perception. 2001;30(10):1227-48
11721824
Perception. 1994;23(2):221-36
7971101
Vision Res. 1996 Oct;36(19):3037-50
8917767
Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1323-32
10788643
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990 Feb;16(1):150-63
2137516
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Jun;19(3):451-70
8331310
Vision Res. 2003 Jul;43(15):1655-66
12798147