Recent research on the Gestalt principle of closure has focused on how the presence of closure affects the ability to detect contours hidden in cluttered visual arrays. Some of the earliest research on closure, however, dealt with encoding and recognizing closed and open shapes, rather than detection. This research re-addresses the relation between closure and shape memory, focusing on how contour closure affects the ability to learn to recognize novel contour shapes. Of particular interest is whether closed contour shapes are easier to learn to recognize and, if so, whether this benefit is due to better encoding of closed contour shapes or easier comparison of closed contour shapes to already learned shapes. The results show that closed contours are indeed easier to recognize and, further, that this advantage appears to be related to better encoding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF, 1954“Some informational aspects of visual perception”Psychological Review61183
2.
BarenholtzEFeldmanJ, 2003“Visual comparisons with and between object parts: evidence for a single-part superiority effect”Vision Research431655–1666
3.
BertaminiMCroucherC J, 2003“The shape of holes”Cognition8733–54
4.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94(2) 115–147
5.
BlumH, 1973“Biological shape and visual science (part I)”Journal of Theoretical Biology38205–287
6.
BruceVGreenPGeorgesonM, 1996Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology (Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press)
7.
CohenE HBarneholtzESinghMFeldmanJ, 2005“What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape”Journal of Vision5313–321
8.
DuncanJ, 1984“Selective attention and the organization of visual information”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113501–517
9.
ElderJZuckerS, 1993“The effect of contour closure on the rapid discrimination of two-dimensional shapes”Vision Research33981–991
10.
ElokaOFranzV H, 2011“Effects of object shape on the visual guidance of action”Vision Research51925–931
11.
FeldmanJSinghM, 2005“Information along contours and object boundaries”Psychological Review112243–252
12.
FieldD JHayesAHessR F, 1993“Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local ‘association field’”Vision Research11173–193
KoffkaK, 1935Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World)
24.
KovacsIJuleszB, 1993“A closed curve is much more than in incomplete one: Closure in figure–ground segmentation”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA907495–7497
25.
MamassianP, 2006“Bayesian inference of form and shape”Progress in Brain Research154265–270
26.
MarinoA CSchollB J, 2005“The role of closure in defining the ‘objects’ of object-based attention”Perception & Psychophysics671140–1149
27.
PaivioA, 1986Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
28.
PalmerS E, 1999Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
29.
PalmerSDavisJNelsonRRockI, 2008“Figure–ground effects on shape memory for objects versus holes”Perception371569–1586
30.
PetersonM AGibsonB S, 1993“Shape recognition inputs to figure–ground organization in three-dimensional displays”Cognitive Psychology25383–429
31.
PetersonM A, 1994“Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure–ground organization”Current Directions in Psychological Science3105–111
32.
PetersonM ASalvagioE, 2008“Inhibitory competition in figure–ground perception: context and convexity”Journal of Vision8(16) 1–13
33.
PetersonM ASkowE, 2008“Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure–ground perception”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance34251–267
34.
PettetM WMcKeeS PGrzywaczN M, 1998“Constraints on long range interactions mediating contour detection”Vision Research38865–879
35.
RichardsC S, 1975“‘Closure’ and Gestalt notions on the visual memory of form: A review”Journal of General Psychology9395–113
SaarinenJLeviD M, 1999“The effect of closure on shape perception”Spatial Vision12227–238
38.
SnodgrassJ GVanderwartM, 1980“A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity”Journal of Experimental Psychology6174–215
39.
TseP U, 1999“A planar cut approach to volume recovery from silhouettes”Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science40398
40.
TverskyTGeislerW SPerryJ S, 2004“Contour grouping: Closure effects are explained by good continuation and proximity”Vision Research442769–2777
41.
VeceraS PVogelE KWoodmanG F, 2002“Lower region: a new cue to figure–ground segregation”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General131194–205
42.
WassersteinJ, 2002“Gestalt concept of closure: A construct without closure”Perceptual and Motor Skills95963–964
43.
WertheimerM, 1923“Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt, II” Psychologische Forschung 4301–389 [condensed in selection 22 in EllisW D (Ed.), 1938 A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace)]
44.
WulfF, 1922“Über die Veränderung von Vorstellungen”Psychologische Forschung1333–373
45.
YenS-CFinkelL H, 1998“Extraction of perceptually salient contours by striate cortical networks”Vision Research38719–741
