Psychological Research

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 83–91 | Cite as

The association of assimilation and an increase in visibility in perceptual grouping

  • Donald L. King
  • Walton Phillips
  • Jacqueline F. Mose
Original Article

Abstract

Subjects performed a series of forced-choice discriminations to determine whether both group-assimilation and group-visibility associations could be obtained from nearly identical strong and weak group patterns. The discrimination between the context+target □ and the context ␣ was better than between the target and background, as was the case for, whose context and target components were its left and right halves, but not for. □ and produced a better performance when their lines (halves) were the same in color, and a poorer performance when their lines were different in color, but ⌈ produced the reverse. Likewise, only □ and produced a better performance when closed, and a poorer performance when open. These context+target etc., same-different, and closure results argue that □ and produced a greater increase in visibility of their component, more assimilation among their parts, and a stronger group than did ⌈. This evidence of a group-assimilation-visibility association cannot be attributed to the fortuitous occurrence of an increase in visibility with one object, assimilation with a second, and closure with a third, unlike previous evidence. This association cannot be explained by feature-based theories. Therefore, a superordinate unit is the cause of this association.

Keywords

Poor Performance Great Increase Previous Evidence Perceptual Grouping Closure Result 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banks, W. P., & White, H. (1984). Lateral interference and perceptual grouping in visual detection.Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 285–295.Google Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1972). Perceiving real-world scenes.Science, 177, 77–80.Google Scholar
  3. Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review, 84, 472–484.Google Scholar
  4. Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1978).Seeing is deceiving: the psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1980). Principles of perceptual organization and spatial distortion: the gestalt illusions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 404–412.Google Scholar
  6. Engel, A. K., Konig, P., & Singer, W. (1991). Direct physiological evidence for scene segmentation by temporal coding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88, 9136–9140.Google Scholar
  7. Fuchs, W. (1967a). Completion phenomena in hemianopic vision. In W. D. Ellis (Ed. and Trans.),A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 344–356). New York: Humanities Press. (Original paper published 1921).Google Scholar
  8. Fuchs, W. (1967b). The influence of form on the assimilation of colours. In W. D. Ellis (Ed. and Trans.),A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 95–103). New York: Humanities Press. (Original paper published 1923).Google Scholar
  9. Gaylord, S. (1984).Effects of inter-stimulus distances on the formation of category boundaries. Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
  10. Hartmann, G. W. (1935).Gestalt psychology. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  11. Johnston, J. C., & McClelland, J. L. (1974). Perception of letters in words: seek not and ye shall find.Science, 184, 1192–1193.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, K., & Schiano, D. J. (1986). Serial processing and the parallel-line illusion: length contrast through relative spatial separation of contours.Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 384–390.Google Scholar
  13. Kanizsa, G. (1988). Colour and organization.New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 289–291.Google Scholar
  14. King, D. L. (1983). Anchor research: evidence for an increase in the perceived similarity of stimuli obtained with a speeded response paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 474–486.Google Scholar
  15. King, D. L. (1988a). “Anchor-range” results with “same” and “different” responses and similar and dissimilar stimuli.Psychological Research, 50, 173–180.Google Scholar
  16. King, D. L. (1988b). Assimilation is due to one perceived whole and contrast is due to two perceived wholes.New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 277–288.Google Scholar
  17. King, D. L. (1988c). Strong phenomenal wholes are associated with fast “same” and slow “different” responses and superior overall performance.Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 485–493.Google Scholar
  18. King, D. L. (1990). A large rectangle delays the perception of a separate small rectangle.Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 369–378.Google Scholar
  19. King, D. L. (1993). A dominant-subordinate unit-against-unit theory of decreases in visibility.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 667–673.Google Scholar
  20. King, D. L., & Atef-vahid, M. (1986). Two extensions of the anchor-range effect.Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 96–104.Google Scholar
  21. King, D. L., Hicks, H., & Brown, P. D. (1993). Context-produced increases in visibility.Psychological Research, 55, 10–14.Google Scholar
  22. King, D. L., Mose, J. F., & Nixon, N. S. (1995). One line decreases the visibility of a simultaneous identical distant second line.Perceptions & Psychophysics, 57, 393–401.Google Scholar
  23. King, D. L., & Thomas, J. (1993). Two effects of context on the presence/absence of connecting segments.Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 489–497.Google Scholar
  24. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  25. Lockhead, G. R. (1972). Processing dimensional stimuli: A note.Psychological Review, 79, 410–419.Google Scholar
  26. Lockhead, G. R. (1988). Assimilation and contrast: two processes or one? A response to King.New Ideas in Psychology, 6, 293–299.Google Scholar
  27. Lockhead, G. R., & King, M. C. (1977). Classifying integral stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 436–443.Google Scholar
  28. Millspaugh, J. R. (1978). Effects of array organization on same-different judgements.Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 27–35.Google Scholar
  29. Musatti, C. (1931). Forma e assimilazione.Archivio Italiano di Psicologia, 9, 213–269.Google Scholar
  30. Obonai, T. (1954). Induction effects on estimates of extent.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 57–60.Google Scholar
  31. Pomerantz, J. R., & Garner, W. R. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks.Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 565–569.Google Scholar
  32. Pomerantz, J. R., & Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 635–649.Google Scholar
  33. Pomerantz, J. R., Sager, L. C., & Stoever, R. J. (1977). Perception of wholes and their component parts: some configural superiority effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 422–435.Google Scholar
  34. Pomerantz, J. R., & Schwaitzberg, S. D. (1975). Grouping by proximity: selective attention measures.Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 355–361.Google Scholar
  35. Prinzmetal, W., & Banks, W. P. (1977). Good continuation affects visual detection.Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 389–395.Google Scholar
  36. Prinzmetal, W., & Millis-Wright, M. (1984). Cognitive and linguistic features affect visual feature integration.Cognitive Psychology, 16, 305–340.Google Scholar
  37. Prinzmetal, W., Trieman, R., & Rho, S. H. (1986). How to see a reading unit.Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 461–475.Google Scholar
  38. Purcell, D. G., & Stewart, A. L. (1988). The face-detection effect: configuration enhances detection.Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 355–366.Google Scholar
  39. Ramachandran, V. S. (May, 1992). Blind spots.Scientific American, 266, 86–91.Google Scholar
  40. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of the meaningfulness of the material.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275–280.Google Scholar
  41. Santee, J. L., & Egeth, H. E. (1980). Interference in letter identification: a test of feature-specific inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 321–330.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, W. (1993). Synchronization of cortical activity and its putative role in information processing and learning.Annual Review of Physiology, 55, 349–374.Google Scholar
  43. Weisstein, N., & Harris, C. S. (1974). Visual detection of line segments: An object superiority effect.Science, 186, 752–755.Google Scholar
  44. Wertheimer, M. (1967). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed. and Trans.),A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 1–11). New York: Humanities Press. (Original address delivered 1924).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald L. King
    • 1
  • Walton Phillips
    • 2
  • Jacqueline F. Mose
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHoward UniversityWashingtonU.S.A.
  2. 2.St MichaelsBarbados
  3. 3.Howard UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations