Broad attention uncovers benefits of stimulus uniformity in visual crowding

Crowding is the interference by surrounding objects (flankers) with target perception. Low target-flanker similarity usually yields weaker crowding than high similarity (‘similarity rule’) with less interference, e.g., by opposite- than same-contrast polarity flankers. The advantage of low target-flanker similarity has typically been shown with attentional selection of a single target object. Here, we investigated the validity of the similarity rule when broadening attention to multiple objects. In three experiments, we measured identification for crowded letters (Experiment 1), tumbling Ts (Experiment 2), and tilted lines (Experiment 3). Stimuli consisted of three items that were uniform or alternating in contrast polarity and were briefly presented at ten degrees eccentricity. Observers reported all items (full report) or only the left, central, or right item (single-item report). In Experiments 1 and 2, consistent with the similarity rule, single central item performance was superior with opposite- compared to same-contrast polarity flankers. With full report, the similarity rule was inverted: performance was better for uniform compared to alternating stimuli. In Experiment 3, contrast polarity did not affect performance. We demonstrated a reversal of the similarity rule under broadened attention, suggesting that stimulus uniformity benefits crowded object recognition when intentionally directing attention towards all stimulus elements. We propose that key properties of crowding have only limited validity as they may require a-priori differentiation of target and context.

Nonsymbolic numerosity in sets with illusory-contours exploits a context-sensitive, but contrast-insensitive, visual boundary formation process

The visual mechanisms underlying approximate numerical representation are still intensely debated because numerosity information is often confounded with continuous sensory cues (e.g., texture density, area, convex hull). However, numerosity is underestimated when a few items are connected by illusory contours (ICs) lines without changing other physical cues, suggesting in turn that numerosity processing may rely on discrete visual input. Yet, in these previous works, ICs were generated by black-on-gray inducers producing an illusory brightness enhancement, which could represent a further continuous sensory confound. To rule out this possibility, we tested participants in a numerical discrimination task in which we manipulated the alignment of 0, 2, or 4 pairs of open/closed inducers and their contrast polarity. In Experiment 1, aligned open inducers had only one polarity (all black or all white) generating ICs lines brighter or darker than the gray background. In Experiment 2, open inducers had always opposite contrast polarity (one black and one white inducer) generating ICs without strong brightness enhancement. In Experiment 3, reverse-contrast inducers were aligned but closed with a line preventing ICs completion. Results showed that underestimation triggered by ICs lines was independent of inducer contrast polarity in both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, whereas no underestimation was found in Experiment 3. Taken together, these results suggest that mere brightness enhancement is not the primary cause of the numerosity underestimation induced by ICs lines. Rather, a boundary formation mechanism insensitive to contrast polarity may drive the effect, providing further support to the idea that numerosity processing exploits discrete inputs.

Contrast polarity affects verification of addition and subtraction problems via conceptual mapping

The extent to which processing of abstract numerical concepts depends on perceptual representations is still an open question. In four experiments, we examined the association between contrast polarity and mental arithmetic, as well as its possible source. Undergraduate psychology students verified the correctness of single-digit arithmetic problems such as 2 + 5 = 7 or 9 − 6 = 5. Problems appeared either in white or black on a grey background, thus creating positive or negative contrast polarity, respectively. When the correct response was Yes (No), participants were faster (slower) in verifying positive than negative addition problems and in verifying negative than positive subtraction problems. Experiment 2 confirmed that the same result also held for written word problems (e.g., SEVEN + SIX = THIRTEEN). However, Experiment 3 found that the effect of contrast polarity observed in Experiments 1 and 2 disappeared in a blocked design where arithmetic operation was a between-participant factor. In addition, Experiment 4 revealed that the effect of contrast polarity does not generalise to multiplication and division. Overall, available evidence suggests that participants spontaneously associate the abstract relation between addition and subtraction (more-less) with a similar relation between contrast polarities (bright-dark).

On the Role of Contrast Polarity: In Response to van der Helm’s Comments

In this work, we discussed and counter-commented van der Helm’s comments on our previous paper (Pinna and Conti, Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149), where we demonstrated unique and relevant visual properties imparted by contrast polarity in eliciting amodal completion. The main question we addressed was: “What is the role of shape formation and perceptual organization in inducing amodal completion?” To answer this question, novel stimuli were studied through Gestalt experimental phenomenology. The results demonstrated the domination of the contrast polarity against good continuation, T-junctions, and regularity. Moreover, the limiting conditions explored revealed a new kind of junction next to the T- and Y-junctions, respectively responsible for amodal completion and tessellation. We called them I-junctions. The results were theoretically discussed in relation to the previous approaches and in the light of the phenomenal salience imparted by contrast polarity. In counter-commenting van der Helm’s comments we went into detail of his critiques and rejected all of them point-by-point. We proceeded by summarizing hypotheses and discussion of the previous work, then commenting on each critique through old and new phenomena and clarifying the meaning of our previous conclusions.

Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)

Pinna and Conti (Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149, doi:10.3390/brainsci9060149) presented phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. These phenomena are indeed illustrative thereof, but here, the focus is on their claims (1) that neither simplicity nor likelihood approaches can account for these phenomena; and (2) that simplicity and likelihood are equivalent. I argue that their first claim is based on incorrect assumptions, whereas their second claim is simply untrue.

Polarity Inversion Catalysis by the 1,4-Addition of N-Heterocyclic Carbenes

Polarity inversion is the hallmark of N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) organocatalysis, with the generation and reaction of acyl anion equivalents known for more than 70 years. In contrast, polarity inversion through 1,4-addition of NHCs to conjugate acceptors was first applied in a catalytic reaction in 2006. This sub-field of NHC-organocatalysis has developed steadily over the subsequent years, enabling novel coupling reactions, enantioselective cycloisomerizations, polymerizations, and other reactions. In this review, this emerging area of NHC-organocatalysis is discussed with comprehensive coverage. In addition, notes regarding the use of other Lewis base catalysts for related reactions, and comments regarding NHC selection for this type of catalysis, are provided.