Skip to main content
Log in

Relationship between uniform connectedness and proximity in perceptual grouping

  • Published:
Science in China Series C: Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Palmer and Rock proposed that uniform connectedness (UC) occurs prior to classical Gestalt factors to define the primitive units for visual perception. Han, Humphreys and Chen, however, found that grouping by proximity can take place as quickly as that based on UC in a letter discrimination task. The present study employed a letter detection task to examine the relationship between UC and proximity grouping in 3 experiments. We showed that reaction times to targets defined by proximity or UC were equally fast when one or two global objects were presented in the visual field. However, as the number of global objects was increased, responses were faster to targets defined by UC than to targets defined by proximity. In addition, the advantage of UC over proximity was not affected by the space between global objects. The results suggest that UC was more effective than proximity in forming perceptual units under multiple object conditions. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marr, D., Vision, San Franciso: W. H. Freeman, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kohler, W., An aspect of Gestalt psychology, in Psychologies of 1925 (ed. Murchison, C.), Worcester, MA: Clark University Press, 1928, 163–195.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wertheimer, M., Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt: II. Psychologische Forshung, 1923, 4: 301–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Palmer, S., Common region: Anew principle of perceptual grouping, Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 436–447.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Palmer, S., Rock, I., Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1994, 1: 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Quinlan, P. T., Wilton, R. N., Grouping by proximity or similarity? Competition between the Gestalt principles in vision, Perception, 1998, 27: 417–430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ben-Av, M. B., Sagi, D., Perceptual grouping by similarity and proximity: Experimental results can be predicted by intensity autocorrelations, Vision Research, 1995, 35: 853–866.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Chen, L., Uniform connectedness and classical Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping, Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61: 661–674.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Interactions between perceptual organization based on Gestalt laws and those based on hierarchical processing, Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61: 1287–1298.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Han, S., Song, Y., Ding, Y. et al., Neural substrates for visual perceptual grouping in human, Psychophysiology, 2001, 38: 926–935.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kimchi, R., Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1998, 24: 1105–1118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Navon, D., Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception, Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9: 353–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Chen, L., Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: Perceptual grouping and encoding of closure, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1999b, 25: 1411–1432.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kimchi, R., The perceptual organization of visual objects: A microgenetic analysis, Vision Research, 200, 40: 1333–1347.

  15. Grice, G. R., Canham, L., Boroughs, J. M., Forest before trees? It depends where you look, Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33: 121–128.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pomerantz, J. R., Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1983, 112: 512–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Han, S., He, X., Yund, E. W. et al., Attentional selection in the processing of hierarchical patterns: An ERP study, Biological Psychology, 2001, 5: 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Han, S., Humphreys, G. W., Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 2002, 55: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chun, M. M., Wolfe, J. M., Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 1996, 30: 39–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Humphreys, G. W., Müller, H. J., Search via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search, Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 43–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duncan, J., Humphreys, G. W., Visual search and stimulus similarity, Psychological Review, 1989, 96: 433–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mack, A., Tang, B., Tuma, R. et al., Perceptual organization and attention, Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24: 475–501.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vecera, S. P., Farah, M. J., Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? Perception & Psychophysics, 1997, 59: 1280–1296.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kramer, A., Watson, S., Object-based visual selection and the principle of uniform connectedness, in Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention (eds. Kramer, A., Coles, M., Logan, G.), Washington, D. C.: APA Press, 1996, 395–414.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Watson, S. E., Kramer, A. F., Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization, Perception & Psychophysics, 1999, 61:31–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Lier, R., Wagemans, J., Effects of physical connectivity on the representational unity of multi-part configurations, Cognition, 1998, 69: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Saiki, J., Hummel, J. E., Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1998, 24: 227–251.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ginsburg, A. P., Spatial filtering and visual form perception, in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (eds. Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J. P.), New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, Chap. 34: 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Peterson, M. A., Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1994, 3: 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., Burkell, J., The cost of visual filtering, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1983, 9: 510–522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Enns, J. T., Kingstone, A., Access to global and local properties in visual search for compound stimuli, Psychological Science, 1995, 6: 283–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shihui Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, S., Humphreys, G.W. Relationship between uniform connectedness and proximity in perceptual grouping. Sci. China Ser. C.-Life Sci. 46, 113–126 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1360/03yc9013

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/03yc9013

Keywords

Navigation