Traditional theories of vision assume that figures and grounds are assigned early in processing, with semantics being accessed later and only by figures, not by grounds. We tested this assumption by showing observers novel silhouettes with borders that suggested familiar objects on their ground side. The ground appeared shapeless near the figure’s borders; the familiar objects suggested there were not consciously perceived. Participants’ task was to categorize words shown immediately after the silhouettes as naming natural versus artificial objects. The words named objects from the same or from a different superordinate category as the familiar objects suggested in the silhouette ground. In Experiment 1, participants categorized words faster when they followed silhouettes suggesting upright familiar objects from the same rather than a different category on their ground sides, whereas no category differences were observed for inverted silhouettes. This is the first study to show unequivocally that, contrary to traditional assumptions, semantics are accessed for objects that might be perceived on the side of a border that will ultimately be perceived as a shapeless ground. Moreover, although the competition for figural status results in suppression of the shape of the losing contender, its semantics are not suppressed. In Experiment 2, we used longer silhouette-to-word stimulus onset asynchronies to test whether semantics would be suppressed later in time, as might occur if semantics were accessed later than shape memories. No evidence of semantic suppression was observed; indeed, semantic activation of the objects suggested on the ground side of a border appeared to be short-lived. Implications for feedforward versus dynamical interactive theories of object perception are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Although readers of this article might easily be able to perceive these real-world objects, the participants in this study were naïve: They were not informed about figure–ground segregation prior to the experiment. For more information, see the Method section.
Peterson and Skow (2008) found evidence of inhibition only when the well-known objects were suggested on the ground side of the silhouette’s borders; evidence of facilitation was obtained when they were sketched on the figure side, ruling out alternative explanations of their results.
Similar patterns were evident in the RTs and errors. RTs were significantly faster for same- versus different-category words when the silhouettes were upright, t(33) = 3.64, p < .01, but not when they were inverted, p > .11. The interaction between condition and orientation was not significant in an ANOVA performed on RTs alone, however, F(1, 33) = 2.51, p > .12. Errors rates were significantly lower for same- than for different-category trials when the silhouettes were upright, t(33) = 2.23, p < .05, but not when they were inverted, p > .10. In addition, error rates were significantly lower for same-category trials when the silhouettes were upright than when they were inverted, t(33) = 2.42, p < .05. The interaction between condition and orientation was not significant in an ANOVA performed on errors alone, however, F(1, 33) = 2.73, p > .11.
A 2 × 2 within-subjects ANOVA on mean RTs with the factors Category Condition (same/different) and Orientation (upright/inverted) revealed no significant main effects or interactions, ps > .18. Moreover, t tests reveal no significant differences between any two conditions, ps > .10. The same analysis conducted on participants’ error rates also showed no significant main effects or interactions, ps > .73. Additionally, t tests revealed no significant differences between any of the conditions, ps > .80. See Table 1 for the mean RTs and error rates.
A 2 × 2 within-subjects ANOVA on mean RTs with the factors Category Condition (same/different) and Orientation (upright/inverted) revealed no significant differences, ps > .14. The same analysis conducted on participants’ error rates also showed no significant main effects or interactions, ps > .65. See Table 1 for the mean RTs and error rates.
Even if competition does extend to semantics, there would be little competition in our stimuli, because the insides of the silhouettes portrayed novel shapes that lacked meaning, and thus, their engagement in competition with the meaningful grounds at the level of semantics would be negligible.
Bueno, S., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime–target relationship, and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882–898. doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.882
Bullier, J. (2001). Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Research Reviews, 36, 96–107.
Clarke, A., Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2013). From perception to conception: How meaningful objects are processed over time. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 187–197.
Costello, P., Jiang, Y., Baartman, B., McGlennen, K., & He, S. (2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 375–382. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.003
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597–600. doi:10.1038/26967
Dell’Acqua, R., & Grainger, J. (1999). Unconscious semantic priming from pictures. Cognition, 73, B1–B15. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00049-9
Dell’Acqua, R., Sessa, P., Peressotti, F., Mulatti, C., Navarrete, E., & Grainger, J. (2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture–word interference paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 177. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00177
Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2011). The characteristics and limits of rapid visual categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 243. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00243
Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. doi:10.1037/0278-73184.108.40.2060
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/BF03195503
Forster, K. I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 2–21). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gibson, B. S., & Peterson, M. A. (1994). Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cueing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 299–316.
Goodhew, S. C., Visser, T. A., Lipp, O. V., & Dux, P. E. (2011). Competing for consciousness: Prolonged mask exposure reduces object substitution masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 588–596. doi:10.1037/a0018740
Gould, I. C., Rushworth, M. F., & Nobre, A. C. (2011). Indexing the graded allocation of visuospatial attention using anticipatory alpha oscillations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105, 1318–1326. doi:10.1152/jn.00653.2010
Greenwald, A. G., Draine, S. C., & Abrams, R. L. (1996). Three cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation. Science, 273, 1699–1702. doi:10.1126/science.273.5282.1699
Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). Common cortical mechanisms for different components of visual object recognition: A combined behavioral and fMRI study. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 474. doi:10.1167/1.3.474
Grossberg, S. (1994). 3-D vision and figure–ground separation by visual cortex. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 48–120. doi:10.3758/BF03206880
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
Huckauf, A., Knops, A., Nuerk, H. C., & Willmes, K. (2008). Semantic processing of crowded stimuli? Psychological Research, 72, 648–656.
Hutchinson, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813. doi:10.3758/BF03196544
Jolicœur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303.
Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2014). Within-hemifield posture changes affect tactile–visual exogenous spatial cueing without spatial precision, especially in the dark. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1121–1135. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0484-3
Kiefer, M., & Spitzer, M. (2000). Time course of conscious and unconscious semantic brain activation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 2401–2407.
Kienker, P. K., Sejnowski, T. J., Hinton, G. E., & Schumacher, L. E. (1986). Separating figure from ground with a parallel network. Perception, 15, 197–216. doi:10.1068/p150197
Kimchi, R., & Peterson, M. A. (2008). Figure–ground segmentation can occur without attention. Psychological Science, 19, 660–668. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02140.x
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York, NY: Liveright. Original work published 1929.
Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A. (2007). How meaning shapes seeing. Psychological Science, 18, 845–849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01989.x
Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., Ruff, D. A., Kiani, R., Bodurka, J., Esteky, H., & Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60, 1126–1141. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043
Kurbat, M. A. (1997). Can the recognition of living things really be selectively impaired? Neuropsychologia, 35, 813–827.
Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neuroscience, 23, 571–579. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X
Likova, L. T., & Tyler, C. W. (2008). Occipital network for figure/ground organization. Experimental Brain Research, 189, 257–267. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1417-6
Liu, H., Agam, Y., Madsen, J. R., & Kreiman, G. (2009). Timing, timing, timing: Fast decoding of object information from intracranial field potentials in human visual cortex. Neuron, 62, 281–290.
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618–630. doi:10.3758/BF03212999
Luck, S. J., Vogel, E. K., & Shapiro, K. L. (1996). Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink. Nature, 383, 616–618. doi:10.1038/383616a0
Macé, M. J.-M., Joubert, O. R., Nespoulous, J.-L., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2009). The time-course of visual categorizations: You spot the animal faster than the bird. PLoS ONE, 4(e5927), 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005927
McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558–572. doi:10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.118
Mohan, K., & Arun, S. P. (2012). Similarity relations in visual search predict rapid visual categorization. Journal of Vision, 12(11), 19. doi:10.1167/12.11.19. 1–24.
Naccache, L., Blandin, E., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13, 416–424. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00474
Navon, D. (2011). The effect of recognizability on figure–ground processing: Does it affect parsing or only figure selection? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 608–624. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.516834
Oram, M. W., & Perrett, D. I. (1992). Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. Journal of Neurophysiology, 68, 70–84.
Peterson, M. A., & Cacciamani, L. (2013). Toward a dynamical view of object perception. In S. J. Dickinson & Z. Pizlo (Eds.), Shape perception in human and computer vision: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 443–457). London, UK: Springer.
Peterson, M. A., Cacciamani, L., Mojica, A. J., & Sanguinetti, J. S. (2012). Meaning can be accessed for the ground side of a figure. Journal of Gestalt Theory, 34, 297–314.
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994a). Must figure–ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253–259.
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994b). Object recognition contributions to figure–ground organization: Operations on outlines and subjective contours. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 551–564.
Peterson, M. A., Harvey, E. M., & Weidenbacher, H. J. (1991). Shape recognition contributions to figure–ground reversal: Which route counts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1075–1089. doi:10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.1685
Peterson, M. A., & Kim, J. H. (2001). On what is bound in figures and grounds. Visual Cognition, 8, 329–348. doi:10.1080/13506280143000034
Peterson, M. A., & Kimchi, R. (2013). Perceptual organization. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 9–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, M. A., & Skow, E. (2008). Inhibition competition between shape properties in figure–ground perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 251–267. doi:10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.124
Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. In J. D. Moore, J. F. Lehman, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 17, pp. 37–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raposo, A., Mendes, M., & Marques, J. F. (2012). The hierarchical organization of semantic memory: Executive function in the processing of superordinate concepts. NeuroImage, 59, 1870–1878.
Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025. doi:10.1038/14819
Romei, V., Driver, J., Schyns, P. G., & Thut, G. (2011). Rhythmic TMS over parietal cortex links distinct brain frequencies to global versus local visual processing. Current Biology, 21, 334–337.
Salvagio, E., Cacciamani, L., & Peterson, M. A. (2012). Competition-strength-dependent ground suppression in figure–ground perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 964–978. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0280-5
Sanguinetti, J. L., Allen, J. J., & Peterson, M. A. (2014). The ground side of an object: Perceived as shapeless yet processed for semantics. Psychological science, 25, 256–264.
Sejnowski, T. J., & Hinton, G. E. (1987). Separating figure from ground with a Boltzmann machine. In M. A. Arbib, A. R. Hanson, P. Alfred, & Sloan Foundation, & National Institutes of Health (Eds.), Vision, brain, and cooperative computation (pp. 703–724). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Serre, T., Oliva, A., & Poggio, T. A. (2007). A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 6424–6429.
Strother, L., Lavell, C., & Vilis, T. (2012). Figure–ground representation and its decay in primary visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 905–914. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00190
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520–522. doi:10.1038/381520a0
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Trujillo, L. T., Allen, J. J., Schnyer, D. M., & Peterson, M. A. (2010). Neurophysiological evidence for the influence of past experience on figure–ground perception. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 5:1–21. doi:10.1167/10.2.5
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X
Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., & Moss, H. E. (2004). Processing objects at different levels of specificity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 351–362.
Urner, M., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Friston, K., & Rees, G. (2013). Early visual learning induces long-lasting connectivity changes during rest in the human brain. NeuroImage, 77, 148–156.
Van den Bussche, E., Van den Noortgate, W., & Reynvoet, B. (2009). Mechanism of masked priming: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 452–477. doi:10.1037/a0015329
Vecera, S. P., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or interactive process? Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1280–1296. doi:10.3758/BF03214214
Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., & Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure–ground assignment. Psychological Science, 15, 20–26. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501004.x
Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594–6611.
Zusne, L. (1975). Curved contours and the associative response. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 203–208.
M.A.P. acknowledges the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BCS 0960529) for support of this research. We thank Steve Palmer for suggesting the orientation manipulation used in these experiments. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript. Portions of these results were presented at the Vision Science Society Meetings in 2012 and 2013, with abstracts published in Journal of Vision.
|Condition||Category||Object Suggested in Silhouette Ground||Word|
|watering can||measuring tape|
About this article
Cite this article
Cacciamani, L., Mojica, A.J., Sanguinetti, J.L. et al. Semantic access occurs outside of awareness for the ground side of a figure. Atten Percept Psychophys 76, 2531–2547 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0743-y
- Figure-ground segregation
- Object perception
- Perceptual organization
- Semantic priming
- Visual awareness