The Shape of a Hole is Perceived as the Shape of its Interior

Abstract

In typical figure–ground displays the figure has shape and is perceived as being in front, whereas the ground is shapeless and recedes to the back. The recent literature on the visual perception of holes has questioned the nature of this coupling between shape and depth both theoretically and empirically. In this paper we provide a theoretical framework that clarifies the underlying issues and we report new evidence supporting the view that the shape of a hole is perceived as the shape of its interior region. Palmer, Davis, Nelson, and Rock (2008 Perception, 37, 1569–1586) showed that the shape of the interior region of a hole is remembered as such, even though the surface visible through it is perceived as farther in depth. The present paper extends this evidence to perceiving holes. Participants performed a speeded shape-matching task in which they compared a surrounded interior region (of either a hole or an object) or its exterior complement with one of several shapes. The results indicate that holes are perceived as shaped in the same way as their material counterparts. We conclude that the shape of a hole is encoded as the shape of its interior region, even though that region contains no surface material. These results can be reconciled with recent experiments that have provided evidence that holes are perceived differently from their material counterparts.

Keywords

perceptual organization holes figure–ground perception shape

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baylis

G. C.

Driver

(1995). Obligatory edge assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1323–1342.

Bertamini

(2006). Who owns the contour of a visual hole? Perception, 35, 883–894.

Bertamini

(2010). Sensitivity to reflection and translation is modulated by objectness. Perception, 39, 27–40.

Bertamini

Croucher

C. J.

(2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87, 33–54.

Bertamini

Helmy

(2012). The shape of a hole and that of the surface-with-hole cannot be analyzed separately. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 608–616.

Bertamini

Mosca

(2004). Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception, 33, 35–48.

Casati

Varzi

(1995). Holes and other superficialities. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Cedrus Corporation (2006). SuperLab Pro Version 4.0 (computer software), San Pedro, CA.

Davis

(1985). An examination of the status of the ground in figure-ground perception (doctoral dissertation). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

10.

Feldman

Singh

(2005). Information along contours and object boundaries. Psychological Review, 112, 243–252.

11.

Giralt

Bloom

(2000). How special are objects? Children's reasoning about objects, parts, and holes. Psychological Science, 11, 497–501.

12.

Kanizsa

Gerbino

(1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In Henle

(Ed.), Vision and artifact (pp. 25–32). New York: Springer.

13.

Kienker

P. K.

Sejnowski

T. J.

Hinton

G. E.

Schumacher

L. E.

(1986). Separating figure from ground in a parallel network. Perception, 15, 197–216.

14.

Masson

M. E. J.

Loftus

G. R.

(2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.

15.

Nelson

Palmer

S. E.

(2001). Of holes and wholes: The perception of surrounded regions. Perception, 30, 1213–1226.

16.

Nelson

Palmer

S. E.

(2007). Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 382–392.

17.

Nelson

Thierman

Palmer

S. E.

(2009). Shape memory for intrinsic versus accidental holes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 200–206.

18.

Palmer

S. E.

(1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

19.

Palmer

S. E.

Brooks

J. L.

(2008). Edge-region grouping in figure-ground organization and depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1353–1371.

20.

Palmer

S. E.

Davis

Nelson

Rock

(2008). Figure-ground effects on shape memory for objects versus holes. Perception, 37, 1569–1586.

21.

Palmer

S. E.

Ghose

(2008). Extremal edges: A powerful cue to depth perception and figure- ground organization. Psychological Science, 19, 77–84.

22.

Peterson

M. A.

(2003). On figures, grounds, and varieties of amodal surface completion. In Kimchi

Behrman

Olson

(Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 87–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23.

Peterson

M. A.

Gibson

B. S.

(1994). Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253–259.

24.

Peterson

M. A.

Salvagio

(2008). Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: Context and convexity. Journal of Vision, 8(16):4, 1–13.

25.

Peterson

M. A.

Skow

(2008). Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure-ground perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 251–267.

26.

Rock

(1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

27.

Rubin

(1958). Figure and ground. In Beardslee

(Ed.), Wertheimer

(Trans.), Readings in perception (pp. 35–101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. (Original work published in 1915.)

28.

Subirana-Vilanova

J. B.

Richards

(1996). Attentional frames, frame curves and figural boundaries: The inside/outside dilemma. Vision Research, 36, 1493–1501.

29.

Vecera

S. P.

O'Reilly

R. C.

(1998). Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: An interactive account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 441–462.

30.

Vecera

S. P.

Vogel

E. K.

Woodman

G. F.

(2002). Lower region: A new cue for figure-ground assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 194–205.