Data were analyzed individually for each subject as a 3-factor, repeated measures ANOVA. The factors were bar type, bay shape, and probe position. As in
Experiment 1, bay shape and probe position yield significant effects on exterior moving response,
F(2, 22) = 5.520,
p = 0.011, and
F(5, 55) = 5.007,
p = 0.001, respectively. As in
Experiment 1, the interaction between bay shape and probe position was significant,
F(10, 110) = 2.341,
p = 0.015. The main effect of bar type did not reach significance,
F(2, 22) = 1.854,
p = 0.18. But the interaction between bar type and bay shape was significant,
F(4, 44) = 3.000,
p = 0.028 (
Figure 4a). When the bay entrance was large or medium, there were no significant differences among the three bar positions (
p > 0.05). But when the entrance was small, the condition in which we found the largest figure/ground reversal in
Experiment 1, there was a significant effect of the bar position,
F(2, 22) = 3.735,
p = 0.04. That is, the combination of conditions that produced the largest reversed border ownership effects in
Experiment 1 was most affected by the position of the bar in
Experiment 2. To confirm this interpretation, we separated out the small entrance condition, and examined the interaction between the probe position and the bar type (
Figure 4b), which was significant,
F(10, 110) = 2.189,
p = 0.023. Summarizing, in the three conditions where the probe was presented outside the bay, there was no effect of the presence or position of an occluded bar, presumably because there was no tendency towards figure/ground reversal. But in conditions where we expected a tendency to reverse figure/ground, i.e. where the probe was inside a bay with a narrow entrance, the presence and position of the bar has a significant effect. When the bar is near the probe, suppressing the depth reversal, contour ownership (as revealed by the probe) follows suit.