Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T21:54:28.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Relative Strength of Grouping Principles Modulate the Interactions between them?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2015

Pedro R. Montoro  and
Dolores Luna
Pedro R. Montoro
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Dolores Luna*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dolores Luna. Departamento de Psicología Básica 1. Facultad de Psicología. UNED. C/ Juan del Rosal 10. 28040. Madrid (Spain). Phone: +34–913987967. E-mail: mluna@psi.uned.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the influence of the relative strength of grouping principles on interactions between the intrinsic principle of proximity and the extrinsic principle of common region in the process of perceptual organization. Cooperation and competition between intrinsic and extrinsic principles were examined by presenting the principle either alone or conjoined with another principle. The relative grouping strength of the principles operating alone was varied in two different groups of participants so that it was similar for one group and very different for the other group. Results showed that, when principles acting alone had different strengths, the grouping effect of the strongest principle was similar to that of the cooperation condition, and the effect of the weakest principle was similar to that of competing conjoined principles. In contrast, when the strength of principles acting alone was similar, the effect of conjoined cooperating principles was greater than that of either principle acting alone. Moreover, the effect of conjoined competing principles was smaller than that of either principle operating alone. Results show that cooperation and competition between intrinsic and extrinsic principles are modulated by the relative grouping strength of principles acting alone. Furthermore, performance in these conditions could be predicted on the basis of performance in single-principle conditions.

Keywords

perceptual organizationvisual groupingproximitycommon regiongrouping strength
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E33
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alais, D., Blake, R., & Lee, S. H. (1998). Visual features that vary together over time group together over space. Nature Neuroscience, I, 160–164.Google Scholar
Claessens, P. M., & Wagemans, J. (2005). Perceptual grouping in Gabor lattices: Proximity and alignment. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 1446–1459. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193649 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochberg, J., & Hardy, D. (1960). Brightness and proximity factors in grouping. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 10, 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PMS.10.1.22-22 Google Scholar
Hochberg, J., & Silverstein, A. (1956). A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity: Proximity vs. differences in brightness. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 456–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1419052 Google Scholar
Kubovy, M., & van den Berg, M. (2008). The whole is equal to the sum of its parts: A probabilistic model of grouping by proximity and similarity in regular patterns. Psychological Review, 115, 131–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. H., & Blake, R. (1999). Visual form created solely from temporal structure. Science, 284, 1165–1168.Google Scholar
Luna, D., & Montoro, P. R. (2011). Interactions between intrinsic principles of similarity and proximity and extrinsic principle of common region in visual perception. Perception, 40, 1467–1477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p7086 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, G. E. (1903). Die Gesichtspunkte und die Tatsachen der psychophysischen Methodik [Points of view and the facts of psychophysical methodology]. In Asher, L. & Spiro, K. (Eds.) Ergebnisse der Physiologie, Jahrgang II, 2. Abtheilung, Biophysik und Psychophysik [Reviews of Physiology, Vol. II, Section 2. Biophysics and Psychophysics] (pp. 267–516). Wiesbaden, Alemania: Bergmann.Google Scholar
Oyama, T., & Miyano, H. (2008). Quantification of Gestalt laws and proposal of a perceptual state-space model. Gestalt Theory, 30, 29–38.Google Scholar
Oyama, T., Simizu, M., & Tozawa, J. (1999). Effects of similarity on apparent motion and perceptual grouping. Perception, 28, 739–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p2799 Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. (1992). Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 436–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90014-S Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. (1999) Vision science. Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E., & Rock, I. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 29–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200760 Google Scholar
Quinlan, P. T., & Wilton, R. N. (1998). Grouping by proximity or similarity? Competition between the Gestalt principles in vision. Perception, 27, 417–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p270417 Google Scholar
Rubin, E. (1922, April). Psychologische Geometrie [Psychological geometry]. In Bülher, K. (Ed.), Bericht über den VII Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie in Marburg [Papers presented at the VII Congress of Experimental Psychology in Marburg] . (pp. 167–168). Jena, Germany: Fischer.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schumann, F. (1900). Beiträge zur Analyse der Gesichtswahrnehmungen. Erste Abhandlung. Einige Beobachtungen über die Zusammenfassung von Gesichtseindrücken zu Einheiten [Some observations on the combination of visual impression units]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 23, 1–32.Google Scholar
Strother, L., & Kubovy, M. (2012). Structural salience and the nonaccidentality of a gestalt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 827–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027939 Google Scholar
van den Berg, M., Kubovy, M., & Schirillo, J. A. (2011). Grouping by regularity and the perception of illumination. Vision Research, 51, 1360–1371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vezzani, S., Marino, B. F. M., & Giora, E. (2012). An early history of the Gestalt factors of organisation. Perception, 41, 148–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p7122 Google Scholar
Vickery, T. J. (2008). Induced perceptual grouping. Psychological Science, 19, 693–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1172–1217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029333 Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II [Laws of organization in perceptual forms II]. Psycholosgische Forschung, 4, 301–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640 Google Scholar
Zhang, S. (1998, April). Fourteen Homogeneity of Variance Tests: When and how to use them. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar