Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 98–111 | Cite as

Amodal completion is modulated by lightness similarity

  • Juno Kim
  • Kelly Jeng
  • Barton L. Anderson


The strength of amodal completion is known to be modulated by contour relationships and global shape. Some researchers have shown that amodal completion also depends on surface similarity, but they have not distinguished the relative importance of similarity in surface representations either pre or post lightness constancy. In the experiments reported here, we aimed to determine whether amodal completion depends on processes that occur either before or after the establishment of lightness constancy. We used computer rendering techniques to vary the consistency of a cast shadow with a decrement in luminance on one side of a partially occluded surface. We found that perceived completion depended on the consistency of the decrement in surface luminance with the orientation of a cast shadow (Exp. 1). In Experiment  2, we generated occluded surface fragments that could be either luminance-matched or lightness-matched to surface fragments on the opposite side of the occluder, and we found that the strength of amodal completion depended primarily on similarity in the perceived surface reflectance. In Experiments 3 and 4, we performed apparent-motion tasks to obtain converging evidence for grouping on the basis of perceived similarity in lightness. We found that matching surfaces in lightness significantly improved the apparent motion of surfaces behind an occluder, as compared with surfaces that were matched in contrast alone. These results suggest that amodal completion depends on the perceived similarity in lightness of partially occluded surface fragments.


2-D shape and form Apparent motion Scene perception Amodal completion 


Author Note

The authors kindly thank P. Marlow for his advice on the design of Experiments 3 and 4. Thanks also to M. Whitbread and K. Tan for their comments and support at various stages throughout the project. This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) discovery project awarded to B.L.A. and J.K., an ARC fellowship awarded to B.L.A., and an Honours Scholarship awarded to K.J. by the University of Sydney.


  1. Albert, M. K., & Tse, P. U. (2000). The role of surface attraction in perceiving volumetric shape. Perception, 29, 409–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. L. (2007a). The demise of the identity hypothesis and the insufficiency and nonnecessity of contour relatability in predicting object interpolation: Comment on Kellman, Garrigan, and Shipley (2005). Psychological Review, 114, 470–487. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.470 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. L. (2007b). Filling-in models of completion: Rejoinder to Kellman, Garrigan, Shipley, and Keane (2007) and Albert (2007). Psychological Review, 114, 509–525. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.509 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, B. L. (2007c). Postscript: Filling-in models of completion. Psychological Review, 114, 525–527. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, B. L., Singh, M., & Fleming, R. W. (2002). The interpolation of object and surface structure. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 148–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Iverson, G., & Falmagne, J. C. (1985). Statistical issues in measurement. Mathematical Social Sciences, 10, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kellman, P. J., Garrigan, P., & Shipley, T. F. (2005). Object interpolation in three dimensions. Psychological Review, 112, 586–609. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.586 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kellman, P. J., Garrigan, P., Shipley, T. F., & Keane, B. P. (2007a). Interpolation processes in object perception: Reply to Anderson (2007). Psychological Review, 114, 488–502. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.488 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kellman, P. J., Garrigan, P., Shipley, T. F., & Keane, B. P. (2007b). Postscript: Identity and constraints in models of object formation. Psychological Review, 114, 502–508. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1991). A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 141–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rock, I., Nijhawan, R., Palmer, S., & Tudor, L. (1992). Grouping based on phenomenal similarity of achromatic color. Perception, 21, 779–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shimojo, S., & Nakayama, K. (1990). Amodal presence of partially occluded surfaces: Role of invisible stimuli in apparent motion correspondence. Perception, 19, 285–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shipley, T. F., & Kellman, P. J. (1992). Perception of partly occluded objects and illusory figures: Evidence for an identity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 106–120.Google Scholar
  14. Su, Y., He, Z. J., & Ooi, T. L. (2010). Surface completion affected by luminance contrast polarity and common motion. Journal of Vision, 10(3), 5.1–14. doi: 10.1167/10.3.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tse, P. U. (1999a). Complete mergeability and amodal completion. Acta Psychologica, 102, 165–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tse, P. U. (1999b). Volume completion. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 37–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48. doi: 10.1037/h0026750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yin, C., Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1997). Surface completion complements boundary interpolation in the visual integration of partly occluded objects. Perception, 26, 1459–1479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yin, C., Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (2000). Surface integration influences depth discrimination. Vision Research, 40, 1969–1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations