Meaningfulness in Figure - Ground Organization
Participate in an experiment to assess whether the meaningfulness of shapes affects figure - ground organization.
CLICK ANYWHERE TO BEGIN
Images © Peterson, M.A. & Gibson. B.S. (1994). "Must Figure–Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril." Psychological Science, Vol 5, issue 5, 253-259. This material is reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications.
Images © Peterson, M.A. & Gibson. B.S. (1994). "Must Figure–Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril." Psychological Science, Vol 5, issue 5, 253-259. This material is reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications.
Which region looked more like "figure"?
Your results cannot be displayed because you didn't complete all the trials.
You can finish the trials and see your results, or you can proceed to the next screen.
Images with upright objectlike shapes
|
||||||
Images with inverted objectlike shapes
|
||||||
Your results
|
Upright objectlike shapes you identified as "figure"
0
Inverted objectlike shapes you identified as "figure"
0
Non-objectlike shapes you identified as "figure"
0
|
Does Meaningfulness Influence Figure–Ground Organization?
It seems reasonable to assume that, in order to recognize an object, we must first identify its shape—that is, we must first perform figure—ground organization, segregating figure from ground so we can assess the figure shape and see if it matches the shape of some object in our memory. However, this assumption appears to be incorrect—that is, it seems that object recognition can occur before figure–ground organization. This was shown in a 1994 experiment by Peterson and Gibson (the experiment on which this demonstration is based). To understand what this observation means, consider the two images below:
For the image on the left, people are about as likely to say that the white part is figure and the black part is ground as they are to say the opposite, that the black part is figure and the white part is ground. For the image on the right, however, people are much more likely to say that the black part is figure and the white part is ground. This is the case even if the image is shown very briefly—for just 100 milliseconds in the present demonstration and for as little as 28 milliseconds in the original 1994 experiment.
The two images are matched in terms of their visual features, such as the overall areas of the black and white regions, so the best explanation for this result is that the meaningfulness of the shape plays a role in identifying figure and ground. That is, it seems that the visual system recognizes the object before performing figure–ground organization.
Images © Peterson, M.A. & Gibson. B.S. (1994). "Must Figure–Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril." Psychological Science, Vol 5, issue 5, 253-259. This material is reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications.
Select your answer to the question below. Then click SUBMIT.
Image © Peterson, M.A. & Gibson. B.S. (1994). "Must Figure–Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril." Psychological Science, Vol 5, issue 5, 253-259. This material is reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications.
Select your answer to the question below. Then click SUBMIT.
Select your answer to the question below. Then click SUBMIT.
Select your answer to the question below. Then click SUBMIT.