scholarly journals Convexity vs. Implied-Closure in Figure-Ground Organization

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Tandra Ghose ◽  
Ananya Mukherjee
Keyword(s):  
eNeuro ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. ENEURO.0127-16.2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan R. Williford ◽  
Rüdiger von der Heydt

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elzbieta Wójcik-Leese

In the first Polish attempt to systematically describe free verse Urbafska (1995) argues that this poetic form requires ‘visual perception during mental (silent) reading’. As free verse gradually adapts to late 20th-century culture, where the visual supersedes the oral, the intonation and rhythm of a poem increasingly come to depend on its graphic segmentation. Consequently, the visual design of the poem constitutes its meaning. As cognitive linguistics admits that sensory imagery, also visual, ‘plays a substantial role in conceptual and semantic structure’ (Langacker, 1983), it seems possible to employ the cognitive parameters of focal adjustments to analyse a poem composed in free verse. If we assume that reading such a poem involves ‘scanning through a domain’ of the page and ‘along a line’ of the poem ‘until a contrast is registered’ (Langacker, 1983), then we can discuss the whole poem in terms of the figure/ground organization. The whole poem can thus be treated both as the figure in itself and as the background to each of the verses, which demands from its readers constant readjustment of the viewpoint. Therefore the awareness of the cognitive strategies of focal adjustments may help to analyse syntactic and stylistic resources of the salient ordering offered by free verse. Moreover, it may assist the translation of poems composed in free verse and the assessment of translated texts.


1989 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 395-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Klymenko ◽  
Naomi Weisstein ◽  
Richard Topolski ◽  
Cheng-Hong Hsieh

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 061606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Michaux ◽  
Vijai Jayadevan ◽  
Edward Delp ◽  
Zygmunt Pizlo

2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (6) ◽  
pp. 4310-4326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Craft ◽  
Hartmut Schütze ◽  
Ernst Niebur ◽  
Rüdiger von der Heydt

Psychophysical studies suggest that figure–ground organization is a largely autonomous process that guides—and thus precedes—allocation of attention and object recognition. The discovery of border-ownership representation in single neurons of early visual cortex has confirmed this view. Recent theoretical studies have demonstrated that border-ownership assignment can be modeled as a process of self-organization by lateral interactions within V2 cortex. However, the mechanism proposed relies on propagation of signals through horizontal fibers, which would result in increasing delays of the border-ownership signal with increasing size of the visual stimulus, in contradiction with experimental findings. It also remains unclear how the resulting border-ownership representation would interact with attention mechanisms to guide further processing. Here we present a model of border-ownership coding based on dedicated neural circuits for contour grouping that produce border-ownership assignment and also provide handles for mechanisms of selective attention. The results are consistent with neurophysiological and psychophysical findings. The model makes predictions about the hypothetical grouping circuits and the role of feedback between cortical areas.


Perception ◽  
10.1068/p7288 ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1392-1394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Midori Takashima ◽  
Teruo Fujii ◽  
Ken Shiina

To examine the effect of homogeneity of area in figure-ground organization, we made several variations of Rubin's goblet. Observers were required to judge whether they perceived a goblet or profiles (faces). Our results showed that, when both profiles were the same lightness, the percentage of judgments (goblet vs profiles) were almost equal. When the profiles were different in lightness, so that the homogeneity of the profile areas was broken, observers were more likely to perceive the profiles. When both profile areas had horizontal stripes or concentric circles and the homogeneity of the profile areas was strengthened, those areas tended to be perceived as ground. We concluded that (1) a difference in lightness was sufficient to break up the homogeneity of the profile areas; (2) good continuity was an eminent condition for unifying profile areas as ground.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document