Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a Dynamical View of Object Perception

  • Chapter
Shape Perception in Human and Computer Vision

Part of the book series: Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ((ACVPR))

Abstract

We review our research demonstrating that object perception is a dynamical, integrated process in which (a) high-level memory representations are accessed before objects are perceived; (b) potential objects compete for perception and only the winners are perceived; and (c) there is no clear dividing line between perception and memory. We begin by describing the results that originally led us to reject the traditional serial hierarchical view of object perception as well as modern feedforward models. We then summarize the accumulating evidence that led us to favor a more dynamical model involving feedback as well as feedforward processing and interactions between high- and low-levels of the visual hierarchy. Throughout, we highlight how our views changed over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A figure-ground segregation stage could be placed at mid- rather than low-levels in the visual hierarchy, as in other models of visual perception that remain serial feedforward models (e.g., [35, 36]).

  2. 2.

    Note that none of the image factors was shown to be necessary for figure-ground perception either.

  3. 3.

    An experiment reported by Rubin [61] suggested that past experience can influence figure assignment, and a subsequent experiment by Schafer & Murphy [63] made the same claim for motivation, which was based on prior experience. These initial claims were rejected because they were open to alternative interpretations (e.g., [65]; see [40] for review).

  4. 4.

    We were not the first investigators to see a relationship between the biased competition model and figure-ground perception (cf. [18, 70]), but previous authors neither elaborated on nor explored their suggestion.

  5. 5.

    Further exploration is necessary to determine whether the individual parts of the novel configurations are novel, but we do know that as an ensemble, the parts in the novel configurations are novel, whereas the ensemble of parts in the part-rearranged novel configuration is familiar.

References

  1. Barense MD, Ngo JKW, Hung LHT, Peterson MA (2012) Interactions of memory and perception in amnesia: the figure-ground perspective. Cereb Cortex 22:2680–2691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baxter MG (2009) Involvement of medial temporal lobe structures in memory and perception. Neuron 61:667–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Clark RE, Reinagel P, Broadbent NJ, Flister ED, Squire LR (2011) Intact performance on feature-ambiguous discriminations in rats with lesions of the perirhinal cortex. Neuron 70:132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cowell RA, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2010) Components of recognition memory: dissociable cognitive processes or just differences in representational complexity? Hippocampus 20:1245–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Craft E, Schütze H, Niebur E, von der Heydt R (2007) A neural model of figure-ground organization. J Neurophysiol 97:4310–4326. doi:10.1152/jn.00203.2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Domijan D, Setic M (2008) A feedback model of figure-ground assignment. J Vis 8(10):11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Duncan J, Humphreys G, Ward R (1997) Competitive brain activity in visual attention. Curr Opin Neurobiol 7:255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gibson BS, Peterson MA (1994) Does orientation-independent object recognition precede orientation-dependent recognition? Evidence from a cueing paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:299–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldreich D, Peterson MA (2012) A Bayesian observer replicates convexity context effects in figure-ground perception. Seeing Perceiving 25:365–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Göttschaldt K (1938) Gestalt factors and repetition (continued). In: Ellis WD (ed) A sourcebook of Gestalt psychology. Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Graham KS, Barense MD, Lee AC (2010) Going beyond LTM in the MTL: a synthesis of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings on the role of the medial temporal lobe in memory and perception. Neuropsychologia 48:831–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grossberg S (1994) 3-d vision in figure-ground separation by visual cortex. Percept Psychophys 55:48–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grossberg S, Mingolla E (1985) Neural dynamics of form perception—boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. Psychol Rev 92(2):173–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hebb DO (1949) The organization of behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jolicoeur P (1985) The time to name disoriented objects. Mem Cogn 13:289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy JM (1974) A psychology of picture perception. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  18. Keysers C, Perrett DI (2002) Visual masking and RSVP reveal neural competition. Trends Cogn Sci 6:120–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kienker PK, Sejnowski TJ, Hinton GE, Schumacher LE (1986) Separating figure from ground with a parallel network. Perception 15:197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim S, Jeneson A, van der Horst AS, Frascino JC, Hopkins RO, Squire LR (2011) Memory, visual discrimination performance, and the human hippocampus. J Neurosci 31:2624–2629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koffka K (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kogo N, Strecha C, Van Gool L, Wagemans J (2010) Surface construction by a 2-d differentiation-integration process: a neurocomputational model for perceived border ownership, depth, and lightness in Kanizsa figures. Psychol Rev 117:406–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Köhler W (1947) Gestalt psychology. New American Library, New York. (Original work published 1929)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kosslyn SM (1987) Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. Psychol Rev 94:148–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kroll JF, Potter MC (1984) Recognizing words, pictures, and concepts: a comparison of lexical, object, and reality decisions. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 23:39–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lamme VAF, Rodriguez V, Spekreijse H (1999) Separate processing dynamics for texture elements, boundaries, and surfaces in primary visual cortex of the macaque monkey. Cereb Cortex 9:406–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Likova LT, Tyler CW (2008) Occipital network for figure/ground organization. Exp Brain Res 189:257–267. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1417-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee AC, Yeung LK, Barense MD (2012) The hippocampus and visual perception. Front Human Neurosci 6:91

    Google Scholar 

  29. Luck SJ, Chelazzi L, Hillyard SA, Desimone R (1997) Neural mechanisms of spatial selective attention in areas V1, V2, and V4 of macaque visual cortex. J Neurophysiol 77:24–42

    Google Scholar 

  30. Marr D (1982) Vision. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miller EK, Gochin PM, Gross CG (1993) Suppression of visual responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex of the awake macaque by addition of a 2nd stimulus. Brain Res 616:25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moran L, Desimone R (1985) Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. Science 229:782–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Murray EA, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2007) Visual perception and memory: a new view of medial temporal lobe function in primates and rodents. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:99–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murray EA, Wise SP (2012) Why is there a special issue on perirhinal cortex in a journal called Hippocampus?: The perirhinal cortex in historical perspective. Hippocampus 22(10):1941–1951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nakayama K (1999) Mid-level vision. In: The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, pp 545–546

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nakayama K, He ZJ, Shimojo S (1995) Visual surface representation: A critical link between lower-level and higher-level vision. Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive science, vol 2, pp 1–70

    Google Scholar 

  37. Oram MW, Perrett DI (1992) Time course of neural responses discriminating different views of the face and head. J Neurophysiol 68:70–84

    Google Scholar 

  38. Peterson MA (1994) Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 3:105–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Peterson MA (1999) What’s in a stage name? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:276–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson MA (1999) Organization, segregation and object recognition. Intellectica 28:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  41. Peterson MA (2003) On figures, grounds, and varieties of amodal surface completion. In: Kimchi R, Behrmann M, Olson C (eds) Perceptual organization in vision: behavioral and neural perspectives. LEA, Mahwah, pp 87–116

    Google Scholar 

  42. Peterson MA (2003) Overlapping partial configurations in object memory: an alternative solution to classic problems in perception and recognition. In: Peterson MA, Rhodes G (eds) Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: analytic and holistic processes. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 269–294

    Google Scholar 

  43. Peterson MA, Cacciamani L, Barense MD, Scalf PE (2012) The perirhinal cortex modulates V2 activity in response to the agreement between part familiarity and configuration familiarity. Hippocampus 22(10):1965–1977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peterson MA, de Gelder B, Rapcsak SZ, Gerhardstein PC, Bachoud-Lévi A (2000) Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient. Vis Res 40:1549–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Peterson MA, Enns JT (2005) The edge complex: implicit perceptual memory for cross-edge competition leading to figure assignment. Percept Psychophys 14:727–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1991) The initial identification of figure-ground relationships: contributions from shape recognition routines. Bull Psychon Soc 29:199–202

    Google Scholar 

  47. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1993) Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional displays. Cogn Psychol 25:383–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1994) Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychol Sci 5:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1994) Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: operations on outlines and subjective contours. Percept Psychophys 56:551–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Peterson MA, Harvey EH, Weidenbacher HL (1991) Shape recognition inputs to figure-ground organization: which route counts? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17:1075–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Peterson MA, Kimchi R (2013) Perceptual organization. In: Reisberg D (ed) Handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford University Press, London, pp 9–31

    Google Scholar 

  52. Peterson MA, Lampignano DL (2003) Implicit memory for novel figure-ground displays includes a history of border competition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:808–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Peterson MA, Salvagio E (2008) Inhibitory competition in figure-ground perception: context and convexity. J Vis 8(16):4 (13pp)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Peterson MA, Skow E (2008) Suppression of shape properties on the ground side of an edge: evidence for a competitive model of figure assignment. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34(2):251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Peterson MA, Skow-Grant E (2003) Memory and learning in figure-ground perception. In: Ross B, Irwin D (eds) Cognitive vision: psychology of learning and motivation, vol 42. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rauschenberger R, Peterson MA, Mosca F, Bruno N (2004) Amodal completion in visual search: preemption or context effects? Psychol Sci 15:351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Reynolds JH, Chelazzi L (2004) Attentional modulation of visual processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:611–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Reynolds JH, Chelazzi L, Desimone R (1999) Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. J Neurosci 19:1736–1753

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rock I (1962) A neglected aspect of the problem of recall: the Hoffding function. In: Scher JM (ed) Theories of the mind. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rolls ET, Tovee MJ (1995) The responses of single neurons in the temporal visual cortical areas of the macaque when more than one stimulus is present in the receptive-field. Exp Brain Res 103:409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rubin E (1958) Figure and ground. In: Beardslee D, Wertheimer M (eds & trans) Readings in perception. Van Nostrand, Princeton, pp 35–101. (Original work published 1915)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Salvagio E, Cacciamani L, Peterson MA (2012) Competition-strength-dependent ground suppression in figure-ground perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 74:964–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Schafer R, Murphy G (1943) The role of autism in a visual figure-ground relationship. J Exp Psychol 32:335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sejnowski TJ, Hinton GE (1987) Separating figure from ground with a Boltzmann machine. In: Arbib MA, Hanson AR (eds) Vision, brain and cooperative computation. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 703–724

    Google Scholar 

  65. Smith DEP, Hochberg J (1954) The effect of “punishment” (electric shock) on figure-ground perception. J Psychol 38:83–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Squire LR, Zola-Morgan S (1991) The medial temporal lobe memory system. Science 253:1380–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Squire LR, Wixted JT (2011) The cognitive neuroscience of human memory since H.M. Annu Rev Neurosci 34:259–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Suzuki WA (2009) Perception and the medial temporal lobe: evaluating the current evidence. Neuron 61:657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Tarr MJ, Pinker S (1990) When does human object recognition use a viewer-centered reference frame? Psychol Sci 1:253–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vecera SP (2000) Toward a biased competition account of object-based segregation and attention. Brain Mind 1:353–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Vecera SP, O’Reilly RC (1998) Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: an interactive account. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:441–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vecera SP, O’Reilly RC (2000) Graded effects in hierarchical figure-ground organization: reply to Peterson 1999. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1221–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wallach H (1949) Some considerations concerning the relationship between perception and cognition. J Pers 18:6–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Zhou H, Friedman HS, von der Heydt R (2000) Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. J Neurosci 20:6594–6611

    Google Scholar 

  75. Zipser K, Lamme VAF, Schiller PH (1996) Contextual modulation in primary visual cortex. J Neurosci 16(22):7376–7389

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

MAP acknowledges the support of NSF BCS 0960529 while writing this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

    Mary A. Peterson & Laura Cacciamani

Authors
  1. Mary A. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Cacciamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary A. Peterson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, King's College Road 6, Toronto, M5S 3G4, Ontario, Canada

    Sven J. Dickinson

  2. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, Third Street 703, West Lafayette, 47907, Indiana, USA

    Zygmunt Pizlo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peterson, M.A., Cacciamani, L. (2013). Toward a Dynamical View of Object Perception. In: Dickinson, S., Pizlo, Z. (eds) Shape Perception in Human and Computer Vision. Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5195-1_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5195-1_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5195-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation