Prediction of Perceptual Responses from Structural Characteristics of the Stimulus

Arnoult, Malcolm D.

doi:10.2466/pms.1960.11.3.261

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study showed that both analyses led to some similar conclusions, but that each type of analysis provided conclusions not obtainable from the other. (Arnoult, 1960;Attneave, 1957;Brown & Owen, 1967;Gould, 1967;Michels & Zusne, 1965;Stenson, 1968;Silver, Landis, & Messick, 1966) in attempts to identify a few measures that are independent of each other and account for most of the variations in patterns and/or in human reaction to them. The results of the present study are consistent with these behavioral studies, as well as neurophysiological ones (e.g., Hubel & Wiesel, 1968), in suggesting that the visual system responds to a large number of different pattern features, rather than to a few "primary" features, as in the case of homogeneous fields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye-movement parameters and pattern discrimination

Gould

Dill

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fig. 1. Schematic of stimulus. Stimuli always contained a center standard pattern surrounded by eight other patterns of asterisks, some of which matched the standard (called targets) and some of which differed from the standard (called nontargets).Second, the effects on eye-movement parameters of the size of the matrix from which patterns were generated was assessed. Patterns were generated from 4 by 4, 6 by 6, 8 by 8, and 10 by 10 matrices. The larger the matrix size, the larger the average number of elements in a pattern. The results of this study showed clearly-perhaps surprisingly-that pattern discrimination was not affected by these variations in matrix size.Third, the effect on eye-movement parameters of the variations in the number of elements in a pattern of a particular matrix size was evaluated. The results of the study showed that variations in the number of elements in target patterns of a particular matrix size affected eye movement parameters differently than did variations in the number of elements in nontarget patterns of the same matrix size. A target pattern was nearly always fixated foveally, whereas the probability of looking directly at a nontarget pattern depended upon its "similarity" to the standard pattern. Duration of fixation on a pattern, however, was determined both by variations in target patterns and by variations in nontarget patterns.Fourth, an attempt was made to identify the features or variations in patterns, in addition to those specifically manipulated in this experiment, that most affect human pattern discrimination. There presently exists no universal psychophysics of pattern perception. That is, although the three physical variables of intensity, wavelength, and purity account well for the perception of homogeneous visual fields, the physical variables that account for the perception of patterned visual fields have not been satisfactorily identified. This is true even though 1~200

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye-movement parameters and pattern discrimination

Gould

Dill

1969

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was suggested in Experiment 1 that form complexity was related not only to the number of sides, but also to symmetry, a suggestion appealing to the studies conducted by Garner, Palmer, Leeuwenberg, and others (see Arnoult, 1960;Garner, 1970Garner, , 1974Leeuwenberg, 1968;Mavrides & Brown, 1969;Palmer, 1991). By extension to these studies, the pairwise comparison in Experiment 1 shows that subjective complexity exhibits a power law relation with respect to the number of independent sides and levels of symmetry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Stimulus configurality may vary along one or more of a number of dimensions of complexity. These have been the subject of both introspective studies and formal modeling undertaken by several research groups in the past half century (Arnoult, 1960;Chen & Chen, 1982, 1987Garner, 1970Garner, , 1974Leeuwenberg, 1968;Mavrides & Brown, 1969;Palmer, 1991; for a review, see Donderi, 2006). From these studies, a number of factors have been found to influence the perceived complexity of simple 2-D forms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oscillatory priming and form complexity

Shi

Elliott

2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of a target grouping is expedited when the target display is preceded by presentation of an oscillating premask that includes priming elements presented intraphasically and below detection threshold at the display locations subsequently occupied by the target. Five experiments were performed to investigate how priming is affected by both the complexity and the geometry of prime/target forms. Experiment 1 showed that the subjective complexity of different polygons was coded in accord with an objective measure of form complexity. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed oscillatory priming to increase as a function of the subjective complexity of prime/target forms when those forms were regular and predictable. However, Experiments 4 and 5 showed that this relation did not hold when the prime/target forms were irregular and unpredictable. Taken together, it is argued that both subjective complexity and the Prägnanz quality of the prime/target forms come to determine the magnitude of priming. These results are discussed with reference to current physiological hypotheses regarding perceptual organization.

show abstract

“…A single psychological variable, judged complexity, was then related to the observed physical factor structure of the forms. Attneave (1957) and Arnoult (1960), using multiple regression techniques, found that the complexity ratings of forms were related to the number of turns in the form, the ratio of the perimeter squared to the area, and a measure of the variability of the angles contained in the perimeter of a form. Using group complexity data they found that these variables accounted for about 80 percent of the variance of the complexity ratings.…”

Section: Physical Measures Of Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The various approaches taken to resolve this problem have been reviewed by Michels and Zusne (1965) and by Hake (1957). Attneave (1957), Arnoult (1960), and Vanderplas and Garvin (1959) have successfully relatedpsychological variables to certain isolated physical measures made on "nonsense" forms, and Vanderplas, Sanderson, and Vanderplas (1965) have provided values for a list of physical variables describing certain characteristics of a large number of such forms. But the problem of the measurement of form in general is still unresolved.…”

Section: Physical Measures Of Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

The physical factor structure of random forms and their judged complexity1

Stenson

1966

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction of Perceptual Responses from Structural Characteristics of the Stimulus

Cited by 31 publications

References 11 publications

Eye-movement parameters and pattern discrimination

Eye-movement parameters and pattern discrimination

Oscillatory priming and form complexity

The physical factor structure of random forms and their judged complexity1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About