Abstract
A detection task was performed using different pictographic representations of objects in order to test the hypothesis that high-level information (familiarity) may influence detection thresholds. The stimuli were five versions of forms: outline drawings of objects, silhouettes, and three fragmented versions of forms derived from the outlines. The stimuli varied on two parameters: their nameability (easily nameable, hardly nameable, and not nameable) as assessed by a naming task, and their energy content as assessed by a two-dimensional fast-Fourier transform. The greatest amount of energy was observed for silhouettes, and the amount of energy contained in the vertical and horizontal spatial frequency components was equivalent for outlines and the three versions of fragmented forms. Luminance thresholds for the detection of the forms were measured by means of an adaptive method. The results show that thresholds were determined only by the energy content of the stimuli. High-level semantic or name information had no influence on the detectability of the visual signal. The results are discussed in terms of the visibility of spatial frequency components at detection threshold.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baron, J. (1978). The word superiority effect: Perceptual learning from reading. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 1, pp. 131-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonnet, C. (1989). La perception visuelle des formes. In C. Bonnet, R. Ghiglione, & J. F. Richard (Eds.), Traité de psychologie cognitive: Vol. I. Perception, action et langage (pp. 2-82). Paris: Dunod.
Boucart, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (1990) Familiarity and nameability do not affect picture detection. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 409–411.
Campbell, F. W., & Robson, J. G. (1968). Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology 197, 551–566.
Doyle, J. R., & Leach, C. (1988). Word superiority in signal detection: Barely a glimpse yet reading nonetheless. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 283–318.
Enns, J. T., & Gilani, A. B. (1988). Three-dimensionality and discriminability in the object-superiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 243–256.
Gorea, A., Demany, L., & Bonnet, C. (1986). Detection et identification en vision et en audition. Bulletin de Psychologie, 39, 349–353.
Gorea, A., & Julesz, B. (1990). Context-superiority in a detection task line element stimuli: A low level effect. Perception, 19, 5–16.
Homa, D., Haver, B., & Schwartz, T. (1976). Perceptability of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual Gestalt. Memory & Cognition, 4, 176–185.
McClelland, J. L., & Miller, J. (1979). Structural factors in figure perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 221–229.
Olzak, L. A., & Thomas, J. P. (1986). Seeing spatial patterns. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. I. Sensory processes and perception (pp. 7.1-7.56). New York: Wiley.
Purcell, D. G., & Stewart, A. L. (1986). The face-detection effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 118–120.
Purcell, D. G., & Stewart, A. L. (1988). The face-detection effect: Configuration enhances detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 355–366.
Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). A case of integrative visual agnosia. Brain, 110, 1431–1461.
Thomas, J. P. (1985). Detection and identification: How they are related. Journal of the Optical Society of America, A2, 1457–1467.
Tyler, C. W. (1987) Analysis of visual modulation sensitivity: III. Meridional variations in peripheral flicker sensitivity. Journal of the Optical Society of America, A4, 1612–1619.
van Santen, J. P. H., & Jonides, J. (1978). A replication of the face-superiority effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 378–380.
Watson, A. B., & Robson, J. G. (1981). Discrimination at threshold: Labelled detectors in human vision. Vision Research, 21, 1115–1122.
Weisstein, N., & Harris, C. S. (1974). Visual detection of line segments: An object-superiority effect. Science, 186, 752–755.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boucart, M., Bonnet, C. Only stimulus energy affects the detectability of visual forms and objects. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 28, 415–417 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334054
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334054