Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 29–55 | Cite as

Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness

  • Stephen PalmerEmail author
  • Irvin Rock
Article

Abstract

A principle of perceptual organization, calleduniform connectedness (UC), is described, and a theoretical approach to perceptual organization is proposed in which this principle plays a fundamental role. The principle of UC states that closed regions of homogeneous properties—such as lightness, chromatic color, texture, and so forth—tend to be perceived initially as single units. We demonstrate its effects and show that they occur even when opposed by powerful grouping principles such as proximity and similarity. We argue that UC cannot be reduced to such grouping principles, because it is not a form of grouping at all. We then propose a theoretical framework within which UC accounts for the initial (orentry level) organization of the visual field into primitive units. Classical principles of grouping operate after UC, creating superordinate units consisting of two or more basic-level units. Parsing processes also operate after UC, dividing basic-level units into subordinate parts. UC in the retinal image is proposed to be a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for unit formation, since connected elements on the retina that are perceived to lie in separate depth planes fail to be perceived as units. This fact, together with other evidence that the Gestalt principles of grouping are based onperceived (rather than retinal) relations, suggests that the organization of visual stimulation into UC objects is ultimately achieved within a relatively late, postconstancy representation of environmental surfaces. The implications of this possibility are discussed in light of present theories of visual perception.

Keywords

Retinal Image Perceptual Organization Binocular Disparity Element Connectedness Common Fate 
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.

References

  1. Banks, W. P., &Krajicek, D. (1991). Perception. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.),Annual review of psychology, 1991 (Vol. 42, pp. 305–331). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, H. G., &Tennenbaum, J. M. (1978). Recovering intrinsic scene characteristics from images. In A. Hanson & E. Riseman (Eds.),Computer vision systems (pp. 3–26). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, H. G., &Tennenbaum, J. M. (1986). Computational approaches to vision. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 2, pp. 38-1 to 38-70). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, J. (1966). Perceptual grouping produced by changes in orientation and shape.Science,154, 538–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, J. (1975). The relation between similarity grouping and perceptual constancy.American Journal of Psychology,88, 397–409.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, J., Sutter, A., &Ivry, R. (1987). Spatial frequency channels and grouping in texture segregation.Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,37, 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergen, J. R., &Landy, M. S. (1991). Computational modelling of visual texture segregation. In M. S. Landy & J. A. Movshon (Eds.),Computational models of visual processing (pp. 253–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Biederman, I. (1985). Recognition by components: A theory of object recognition.Computer, Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,32, 29–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bregman, A. S. (1981). Asking the “what for” question in auditory perception. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 99–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bregman, A. S. (1990).Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bruno, N., &Cutting, J. E. (1988). Minimodularity and the perception of layout.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavanaugh, P. (1987). Reconstructing the third dimension: Interactions between color, texture, motion, binocular disparity, and shape.Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,37, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavanaugh, P. (1988). Pathways in early vision. In Z. Pylyshyn (Ed.),Computational processes in human vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 245–289). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, J. J. (1950).The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  15. Gilchrist, A. L. (1979, March). The perception of surface blacks and whites.Scientific American, pp. 112–126.Google Scholar
  16. Gilchrist, A. L. (1988). Lightness contrast and failures of constancy: A common explanation.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 415–424.Google Scholar
  17. Goldmeier, E. (1972).Similarity in visually perceived forms. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  18. Graham, N., Beck, J., &Sutter, A. (1992). Nonlinear processes in spatial frequency channel models of perceived texture segregation: Effects of sign and amount of contrast.Vision Research,32, 719–743.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossberg, S., &Mingolla, E. (1985). Neural dynamics of form perception: Boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading.Psychological Review,92, 173–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffman, D. D., &Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition.Cognition,18, 65–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubel, D. H., &Wiesel, T. N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex.Journal of Physiology,195, 215–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (1993). Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.),Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 143–162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, D., &Malik, J. (1992). A computational framework for determining stereo correspondence from a set of linear spatial filters. In G. Sandini (Ed.),Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 395–410). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Julesz, B. (1975, April). Experiments in the visual perception of texture.Scientific American, pp. 34–43.Google Scholar
  25. Julesz, B. (1981). Textons: The elements of texture perception and their interactions.Nature,290, 91–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kanizsa, G., &Gerbino, W. (1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In M. Henle (Ed.),Vision and artifact (pp. 25–32). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Kellman, P. J., &Shipley, T. F. (1991). A theory of visual interpolation in object perception.Cognitive Psychology,23, 141–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellman, P. J., &Spelke, E. S. (1983). Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy.Cognitive Psychology,15, 483–524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimchi, R., &Palmer, S. E. (1982). Form and texture in hierarchically constructed patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimchi, R., &Palmer, S. E. (1985). Separability and integrality of levels in hierarchical patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Köhler, W. (1928). An aspect of Gestalt psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.),Psychologies of 1925 (pp. 163–195). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Krauskopf, J. (1963). Effect of retinal image stabilization on the appearance of heterochromatic targets.Journal of the Optical Society of America,53, 741–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Land, E. H. (1977, December). The retinex theory of color vision.Scientific American, pp. 108–128.Google Scholar
  34. Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization.Journal of Genetic Psychology,46, 41–75.Google Scholar
  35. Livingstone, M., &Hubel, D. (1987). Psychophysical evidence for separate channels for the perception of form, color, movement, and depth.Journal of Neuroscience,7, 3416–3468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowe, D. G. (1985).Perceptual organization and visual recognition. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Mack, A., Tang, A., Tuma, R., Kahn, S., &Rock, I. (1992). Perceptual organization and attention.Cognitive Psychology,24, 475–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Malik, J., &Perona, P. (1990). Preattentive texture discrimination with early vision mechanisms.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,7, 923–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  40. Marr, D., &Hildreth, E. C. (1980). Theory of edge detection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,207, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,200, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marr, D., &Poggio, T. (1977). Cooperative computation of stereo disparity.Science,194, 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marr, D., &Poggio, T. (1979). A computational theory of human stereo vision.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,204, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York-Appleton-Century-Crafts.Google Scholar
  45. 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: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  46. Palmfr, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation.Cognitive Psychology,9, 441–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer, S. E. (1992). Common region A new principle of perceptual grouping.Cognitive Psychology,24, 436–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Palmer, S E. (1994). Late influences on perceptual grouping Amo-dal completion. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  49. Peterson, M. A., &Gibson, B. S. (1991) The initial identification of figure-ground relationships: Contributions from shape recognition processes.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 199–202.Google Scholar
  50. Pfterson, M. A., &Gibson, B. S. (1993). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization and perceived depth in three-dimensional displays.Cognitive Psychology,25, 383–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peterson, M. A., Harvey, E. M., &Weidenbacher, H. (1991) Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: Which route counts?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 1075–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rock, I. (1975).Introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Rock, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rock, I. (1986). The description and analysis of object and event perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Hand-hook of perception and human performance (Vol 2, pp. 33-1 to 33-71) New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Rock, I., &Brosgole, L. (1964). Grouping based on phenomenal proximity.Journal of Experimental Psychology,67, 531–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Rock, I., Linnett, C. M., Grant, P., &Mack, A. (1992) Perception without attention: Results of a new method.Cognitive Psychology,24, 502–534.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rock, I., Nuhawan, R., Palmer, S., &Tudor, L. (1992) Grouping based on phenomenal similarity of achromatic color.Perception,21, 779–789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rubin, E. (1921)Visuell wahrgenommene Figuren. Copenhagen: Glydendalkse Boghandel.Google Scholar
  59. Rubin, J. M., &Richards, W. A. (1984).Color vision. Representing material categories (Tech. Rep. No. 764). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.Google Scholar
  60. Shepard, R. N. (1981) Psychophysical complementarity. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 279–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Stevens, K. A. (1979).Surface perception from local analysis of texture and contour. (Tech. Rep. No 512). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.Google Scholar
  62. Treisman, A. (1986). Properties, parts, and objects. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol 2, pp 35-1 to 35-70). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Ullman, S. (1984) Visual routines.Cognition,18, 97–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wallach, H., O’Connell, D. N., &Neisser, U. (1953) The memory effect of visual perception of three-dimensional form.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 360–368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Werthlimer, M. (1923) Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II.Psychologische Forschung,4, 301–350. Partial translation in W. D. Elhs (Ed.) (1950).A sourcebook of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–81). New York. Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winston, P. H. (1975). Learning structural descriptions from examples. In P. H. Winston (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision (pp. 157–209) New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  67. Witkin, A. P. (1981). Recovering surface shape and orientation from texture.Artificial Intelligence,17, 17–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zucker, S. W., &Hummel, R. A. (1979) Toward a low-level description of dot clusters Labelling edge, interior, and noise points.Computer Graphics & Image Processing,9, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations