title: Can we track holes?
abstract: The evidence is mixed as to whether the visual system treats objects and holes differently. We used a multiple object tracking task to test the hypothesis that figural objects are easier to track than holes. Observers tracked four of eight items (holes or objects). We used an adaptive algorithm to estimate the speed allowing 75% tracking accuracy. In Experiments 1-5, the distinction between holes and figures was accomplished by pictorial cues, while red-cyan anaglyphs were used to provide the illusion of depth in Experiment 6. We variously used Gaussian pixel noise, photographic scenes, or synthetic textures as backgrounds. Tracking was more difficult when a complex background was visible, as opposed to a blank background. Tracking was easier when disks carried fixed, unique markings. When these factors were controlled for, tracking holes was no more difficult than tracking figures, suggesting that they are equivalent stimuli for tracking purposes.
authors.affiliation: Visual Attention Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States. toddh@search.bwh.harvard.edu
authors.forename: Todd S
authors.initials: TS
authors.lastname: Horowitz
authors.forename: Yoana
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Kuzmova
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007088:Illusions; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009039:Motion Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D012684:Sensory Thresholds / Q000502:physiology; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult