Perception of wholes and of their component parts some configural superiority effects
Download
1 / 27

Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 124 Views
  • Uploaded on

Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects. Pomerantz , J. R., Sager, L. C., and Stoever , R. J. (1977). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 3 , 422-435. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects' - reya


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Perception of wholes and of their component parts some configural superiority effects

Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configural superiority effects

Pomerantz, J. R., Sager, L. C., and Stoever, R. J. (1977). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 422-435.


Introduction
Introduction

  • Feature detectors have sometimes been presumed to operate independently of one another.

  • But the independent assumption has difficulty in explaining certain context effects in perception, e.g. Gestalt phenomenon.

  • In Gestalt, there were 2 claims

    • The appearance of one element in the visual field was influenced heavily by elements nearby

    • The perception in general could not be characterized as the simple sum of independent features or sensations


Introduction context aiding perception
Introduction – context aiding perception

  • Two sides of stories

    • Interference: context acts to impair perception

      • Context may adds noise to the perceptual system, overloading or otherwise disrupting its normal operation.

      • Explanation of word superiority effect:

        • Perceptual interpretation

        • Postperceptual interpretation (preferred)

    • Aiding: context could aid perception itself

      • Context could aid perception itself, rather than some postperceptual process.

      • Context influenced perception, but always in a harmful way. (Homa, Haver, & Schwartz, 1976)

      • Schendel and Shaw (1976) found a beneficial effect of context, which parallel the result in word superiority effects.

      • Context improving discrimination, even though it does not show that the effect is necessarily perceptual in origin.


Purpose
Purpose

  • To explore in more detail the possibility that context can improve perception itself.

  • That is, clarifying the conditions under which context might aid perception and with localizing the stage of processing at which context would have its effects


Experiment 1
Experiment 1

  • Pomerantz and Garner (1973) showed that subjects perceived two curvature elements as a whole.

  • Failure of selective attention was therefore proposed as an operational measure of perceptual grouping.

  • Pomerantz and Schwaitzberg (1975) found that two-choice RTs increased when the elements were moved further.

  • In this experiment, they tested whether having a constant element nearby actually improved performance.


Experiment 1 method
Experiment 1 – method

  • Context condition: ( ) ‧ ) )

  • No-context condition: (‧)

  • Two-alternative RT task

  • 8subjects

  • 3 blocks, order of conditions within blocks was counterbalanced across subjects

  • Each condition consisted of 72 stimulus, divided equally between two stimulus.

()

()

))

Is the target “(“ or “)”?

Auditory

warning signal

200 ms


Experiment 1 result
Experiment 1 – result

  • Mean correct RT for the context condition was 421 ms.

  • Mean correct RT for the no-context condition was 444 ms.

  • The difference is significant. (p < .05)

  • Configural superiority effect was obtained even knew both the location and the identity of the stimulus alternatives beforehand.


Experiment 1 discussion
Experiment 1 – discussion

  • Stimulus must be held in memory and recognized, and then selected and executed the proper response.

  • Next step is to clarify whether the effect is a perceptual one?

    • Recognize faster?

    • Easier to associate with the required response?

  • What is the contexts that impair perception instead of facilitating it?

    • If all contexts help, …

      • It could be explained by lateral enhancement and the claim that context converts an absolute judgment into a relative one.

      • Any context providing a similar positional anchor should be helpful.

    • Otherwise, …

      • It can’t be explained by lateral enhancement.


Experiment 2
Experiment 2

  • Perceptual alone?

    • Employed task with minimal memory demands

    • To indicate the location in the field of the odd stimuli, and neither the set of possible stimuli nor an arbitrary response code need be remembered.

    • If effect remains, it can be assured that the effect is perceptual in origin.

  • All context?

    • The possible important factors of previous stimuli are:

      • Mirror image

      • Bilaterally symmetrical

    • Experiment 2 use different stimulus to control the two factors.


Experiment 2 method
Experiment 2 – method

  • 12 subjects were used.

  • Decide which quadrant contained the disparate elements.

  • Each array was presented 4 times, with the first time always be treated as practice and not scored.


Experiment 2 result
Experiment 2 – result

  • Replicate the result from experiment 1


Experiment 2 result1
Experiment 2 – result

  • Destroy the original grouping structure.

  • No superiority effects.

  • It is unlikely that the effect found in A, B and C was due to lateral enhancement.


Experiment 2 result2
Experiment 2 – result

  • Basic superiority effect did not depend on regular spacing of the stimuli.

  • Mirror image and bilateral symmetry were not the factors that improve the emergent of context.


Experiment 21
Experiment 2

  • Unusually long reaction times were obtained in experiment 2.

    • Simply difficult to see?

    • Performance may be process limited rather than state limited.

  • Can the effect be obtained with other types of simple perceptual discrimination?


Experiment 3
Experiment 3

  • Different discrimination:

    • Orientation of a curved line segment

    • Position of a line relative to a fixed point

    • Positive v.s. negative diagonal line

    • Horizontal v.s. vertical line

    • Line length

  • Larger size to eliminate limitation in processing.


Experiment 3 result
Experiment 3 – result

Baseline condition

  • Context per se does not automatically help or hinder perception.

  • Certain contexts help, while others hinders.


Experiment 4
Experiment 4

  • Word superiority effects may vanish when the subject can prepare himself for the kind of discrimination he will have to make.

  • Whether the same would be true for the this superiority effect?


Experiment 4 method
Experiment 4 – method

  • The method and procedure are similar to experiment 2 and 3.

  • Block designed with counterbalanced order

  • 2 blocks with 32 stimulus exposure each  practice trials

  • 3 more replications of the 2 blocks were counted


Experiment 4 result
Experiment 4 – result

RT : 1,480 ms 641 ms

  • Configural superiority can emerge even when the subject has foreknowledge of the exact discrimination he will have to make on each trial.

  • The long RTs were reduced.


Experiment 4 discussion
Experiment 4 – discussion

  • We can obtain the effect with a number of elementary perceptual discriminations and in both classification and oddity tasks.

  • Seemed to be free from memory involvement.

  • It is not obvious what component processes are involved in performing an oddity task

    • array may be processed serially or in parallel model.


Experiment 4 discussion1
Experiment 4 – discussion

  • To test the processing model of superiority effect, the set size should be alternated.

  • In serial model, …

    • The time required to locate the odd stimulus should grow with the size of the array to be processed.

  • In parallel model, …

     The disparate stimulus spontaneously segregates regardless of the number of background stimuli.


Experiment 5
Experiment 5

  • Measured the time required to determine whether any stimulus in an array is different from the others, as a function of the number of the stimuli in the array.

  • Detection task with stimulus same as experiment 4, and press when detect a disparity

  • 3 conditions:

    • No context(NC)

    • Good context (GC)

    • Poor context (PC)

  • 3 set sezes:

    • 2, 4, and 6

  • All intermixed

  • All position has equal chance

  • 50% absent, 50% detection


Experiment 51
Experiment 5

  • GC has fastest RT, while PC show the lowest.

  • Display size had virtually no effect with the GC arrays, while had large effect on the PC arrays.

  • Within NC arrays, for all subjects, the RTs were longest when the arrays contained just four stimuli.


Experiment 52
Experiment 5

  • When an array contains just diagonal lines with no context, the lines appear to interact to form larger configurations.


Experiment 5 discussion
Experiment 5 – discussion

  • GC arrays: parallel feature-inhibition model

  • PC arrays: serial-memory model

  • Subjects processed the no-context arrays as holistic configurations, which is itself another instance of configural dominance.


Conclusion
Conclusion

  • Context can improve discriminability.

  • Context appears to have its effect directly on perceptual components of discrimination.

  • How does context improve discriminability?

    • Context changes an absolute judgment into a relative one by providing an anchor

    • Context interacts with the target to form emergent features


Conclusion1
Conclusion

  • Novel features happen to be more discriminable than the features contained by the targets without context.

  • Emergent features could be detected indirectly by integrating the output of detectors for simple parts.

  • Emergent features serve as functional units in perception, regardless of whether they are detected directly or are derived from simple parts.