Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 433–436 | Cite as

The disappearance of dichoptically presented real and subjective contours

  • Diane F. Halpern
  • Joel S. Warm
Article

Abstract

The fragmentation characteristics of luminous figures set off by real or subjective contours were studied under dichoptic viewing conditions. Dichoptically viewed subjective contours fragmented in a manner quantitatively and qualitatively similar to that previously obtained with binocular viewing. The number of fragmentations for real contour analogues increased substantially under dichoptic relative to binocular conditions. These results are considered to support the view that subjective contours arise primarily from central processes within the perceptual system.

Keywords

Illusory Contour Subjective Contour Binocular Rivalry Inspection Period Binocular Viewing 
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. Bradley, D. R. (1982). Binocular rivalry of real vs. subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Day, R. H., & Jory, M. K. (1980). A note on a second stage in the formation of illusory contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dumais, S. T., & Bradley, D. R. (1976). The effects of illumination level and retinal size on the apparent strength of subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gellatly, A. R. (1980). Perception of an illusory triangle with masked inducing figure. Perception, 9, 599–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Halpern, D. F. (1981). The determinants of illusory-contour perception. Perception, 10, 199–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halpern, D. F., & Salzman, B. (1983). The multiple determination of illusory contours: 1. A review. Perception, 12, 281–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halpern, D. F., Salzman, B., Harrison, W., & Widaman, K. (1983). The multiple determination of illusory contours: 2. An empirical investigation. Perception, 12, 293–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halpern, D. F., & Warm, J. S. (1980). The disappearance of real and subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kennedy, J. M., & Chattaway, D. (1975). Subjective contours, binocular and movement phenomena. Italian Journal of Psychology, 11, 353–367.Google Scholar
  10. Long, G. M. (1979). The dichoptic viewing paradigm: Do the eyes have it? Psychological Bulletin, 86, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McKinney, J. P. (1963). Disappearance of luminous designs. Science, 140, 403–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKinney, J. P. (1966). Verbal meaning and perceptual stability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 237–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myers, J. (1979). Fundamentals of experimental design (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Rock, I., & Anson, R. (1979). Illusory contours as the solution to a problem. Perception, 8, 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salzman, B., & Halpern, D. F. (1982). Subjective towers: Depth relationships in multilevel subjective contours. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 1247–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schuck, J. R. (1973). Factors affecting reports of fragmenting visual images. Perception & Psychophysics, 13, 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, A. T., & Over, R. (1979). Motion aftereffect with subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Swanston, M. T. (1979). The effects of verbal meaning and response categorisation on the fragmentation of steadily fixated patterns. Perception, 8, 635–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weisstein, N. (1969). What the frog’s eye tells the human brain: Single cell analyzers in the human visual system. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 157–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The psychonomic soceity, inc 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane F. Halpern
    • 1
  • Joel S. Warm
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State UniversitySan Bernardino
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati

Personalised recommendations