November 2002
Volume 2, Issue 7
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   November 2002
The role of convexity and part structure in modal and amodal completion
Author Affiliations
  • Manish Singh
    Rutgers University
Journal of Vision November 2002, Vol.2, 81. doi:10.1167/2.7.81
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Manish Singh; The role of convexity and part structure in modal and amodal completion. Journal of Vision 2002;2(7):81. doi: 10.1167/2.7.81.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

What geometric constraints determine when the visual system will interpolate between two disjoined image fragments to create the percept of a single unified surface? In particular, to what extent does local contour geometry predict surface completion? We compared visual completion (both modal and amodal) across situations in which the local contour geometry was the same, but the surface geometry (i.e., its shape description) was very different. Observers viewed stereoscopic displays consisting of two inducers separated by an orthogonally oriented oval. The oval was given either near or far disparity relative to the inducers, thus requiring the inducers to complete either amodally behind the oval, or modally in front of it. The contours of the inducers leading up to the oval were bent either inwards or outwards, by the same angle, requiring either concave completion (inducing a two-part structure) or a convex completion (with no part boundaries). On each trial, two probes (a single or double “wiggle”) were briefly flashed—one along each inducer—and then masked. Observers judged whether the two probes were the same or different. From single-object-superiority / two-object-cost paradigms, we expect performance to be better for stronger visual completions. Accuracy and RT data revealed that, for both modal and amodal completion, performance was better in the convex case than in the concave case. The results support and extend Liu et al.'s (1999) findings, using a very different method. They indicate that modal and amodal completion depend not only on local contour geometry, but also on the shape description (such as perceived part structure) that the enclosed surface receives.

Singh, M.(2002). The role of convexity and part structure in modal and amodal completion [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 2( 7): 81, 81a, http://journalofvision.org/2/7/81/, doi:10.1167/2.7.81. [CrossRef]
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×