Psychological Research

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 317–329 | Cite as

Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification

  • Peter De Graef
  • Dominie Christiaens
  • Géry d'Ydewalle


In a number of studies the context provided by a real-world scene has been claimed to have a mandatory, perceptual effect on the identification of individual objects in such a scene. This claim has provided a basis for challenging widely accepted data-driven models of visual perception in order to advocate alternative models with an outspoken top-down character. The present paper offers a review of the evidence to demonstrate that the observed scene-context effects may be the product of post-perceptual and task-dependent guessing strategies. A new research paradigm providing an on-line measure of genuine perceptual effects of context on object identification is proposed. First-fixation durations for objects incidentally fixated during the free exploration of real-world scenes are shown to increase when the objects are improbable in the scene or violate certain aspects of their typical spatial appearance in it. These effects of contextual violations are shown to emerge only at later stages of scene exploration, contrary to the notion of schema-driven scene perception effective from the very first scene fixation. In addition, evidence is reported in support of the existence of a facilitatory component in scene-context effects. This is taken to indicate that the context directly affects the ease of perceptual object processing and does not merely serve as a framework for checking the plausibility of the output of perceptual processes. Finally, our findings are situated against other contrasting results. Some future research questions are highlighted.


Object Identification Individual Object Perceptual Effect Research Paradigm Perceptual Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antes, J. R. (1974). The time course of picture viewing.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 62–70.Google Scholar
  2. Antes, J. R., Mann, S. M., & Penland, J. G. (1981).Local precedence in picture naming: The importance of obligatory objects. Paper presented at the 1981 meeting of the Psychonomic Society.Google Scholar
  3. Antes, J. R., & Penland, J. G. (1981). Picture context effects on eye movement patterns. In D. F.Fischer, R. A.Monty, & J. W.Senders (Eds.),Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception (pp. 157–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Antes, J. R., Penland, J. G., & Metzger, R. L. (1981). Processing global information in briefly presented pictures.Psychological Research, 43, 277- 292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Antes, J. R., Singsaas, P. A., & Metzger, R. L. (1978). Components of pictorial informativeness.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 459–464.Google Scholar
  6. Biederman, I. (1981). On the semantics of a glance at a scene. In M. Kubovy & J. R.Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Biederman, I. (1988). Aspects and extensions of a theory of human image understanding. In Z. W.Pylyshyn (Ed.),Computational processes in human vision: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 370–428). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  9. Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R. J., & Rabinowitz, J. C. (1982). Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyce, S. J., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1989). Effects of background information on object identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human. Perception and Performance, 15, 556–566.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., & Parmelee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures and priming: On semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 757–777.Google Scholar
  12. Cliff, N. (1987).Analyzing multivariate data. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316–355.Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, A. R., & Riseman, E. M. (1978). VISIONS: A computer system for interpreting scenes. In A.Hanson & E.Riseman (Eds.),Computer vision systems (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, J. M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1987). Effects of foveal priming and extrafoveal preview on object identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 449–463.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, J. M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1989). Covert visual attention and extrafoveal information use during object identification.Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 196–208.Google Scholar
  17. Huttenlocher, J., & Kubicek, L. F. (1983). The source of relatedness effects on naming latency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 486–496.Google Scholar
  18. Inhoff, A. W. (1984). Two stages of word processing during eye fixations in the reading of prose.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 612–624.Google Scholar
  19. Kirk, R. E. (1982).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  20. Klatsky, G. J., Teitelbaum, R. C., Mezzanotte, R. J., & Biederman, I. (1981). Mandatory processing of the background in the detection of objects in scenes.Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 25, 272–276.Google Scholar
  21. Kroll, J. F., & Potter, M. C. (1984). Recognizing words, pictures and concepts: A comparison of lexical, object and reality decisions.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 39–66.Google Scholar
  22. Locher, P. J., & Nodine, C. F. (1987). Symmetry catches the eye. In J. K.O'Regan & A.Levy-Schoen (Eds.),Eye Movements: From Physiology to Cognition (pp. 353 - 361) North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Loftus, G. R. (1983). Eye fixations on text and scenes. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eye movements in reading (pp. 359 - 376). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Loftus, G. R., & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 565 - 572.Google Scholar
  25. Loftus, G. R., Nelson, W. W., & Kallman, H. J. (1983). Differential acquisition rates for different types of information from pictures.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 187 -198.Google Scholar
  26. McArthur, D. J. (1982). Computer vision and perceptual psychology.Psychological Bulletin, 92, 283 - 309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marr, D. (1978). Representing visual information: A computational approach. In A. R.Hanson & E. M. Riseman (Eds.),Computer vision systems (pp. 61 - 80). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Marr, D. (1982).Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Metzger, R. L., Antes, J. R. (1983). The nature of processing early in picture perception.Psychological Research, 45, 267 - 274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nodine, C. E., Carmody, D. P., & Kundel, H. L. (1978). Searching for NINA. In J. W.Senders, D. F.Fisher, & R. A.Monty (Eds.),Eye movements and the higher psychological functions (pp. 241 - 258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Palmer, S. E. (1975). Visual perception and world knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In D. A.Norman & D. E.Rumelhart (Eds.),Explorations in cognition (pp. 279 - 307). San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  32. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1987). Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and Performance XII, (pp. 327 - 362). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Riseman, E. M., & Hanson, A. R. (1987). A methodology for the development of general knowledge-based vision systems. In M. Arbib & A.Hanson (Eds.),Vision, brain and cooperative computation (pp. 285 - 328). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schank, R. (1982).Dynamic memory. A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Verfaillie, K., & Wagemans, J. (1987).Constraints in perception and cognition of objects, scenes and events. Psychological Report, 72, Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  36. Young, L. R., & Sheena, D. (1975). Survey of eye movement recording methods.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 7, 397–429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter De Graef
    • 1
  • Dominie Christiaens
    • 1
  • Géry d'Ydewalle
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations