Subthreshold summation with illusory contours

Dresp, Birgitta; Brunet, Claude

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)00204-y

Cited by 49 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…on phenomenal measures (e.g. rating the strength of the subjective ®gure, as in Warm, Dember, Padich, Beckner, & Jones, 1987; though see Dresp & Bonnet, 1995;Rubin, Nakayama, & Shapley, 1996, for more objective measures). Moreover, most studies have taken such phenomenal measures while presenting just a single subjective ®gure display to the observer, often for unspeeded visual inspection and self-rating.…”

Section: Phenomenology and Its Limits Once Againmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues concerning selective attention provoke new questions about visual segmentation, and vice-versa. We illustrate this by describing our recent work on grouping under conditions of inattention, on change blindness for background events and the residual processing of undetected background changes, on modal versus amodal completion in visual search, and the differential effects of these two forms of completion on attentional processes, and on attentional modulation of lateral interactions thought to arise in early visual cortex. Many of these results indicate that segmentation processes substantially constrain attentional processes, but the reverse in¯uence is also apparent, suggesting an interactive architecture. We discuss how the`proto-objects' revealed by studies of segmentation and attention (i.e. the segmented perceptual units which constrain selectivity) may relate to other object-based notions in cognitive science, and we wrestle with their relation to phenomenal visual awareness. q

show abstract

Section: Phenomenology and Its Limits Once Againmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmentation, attention and phenomenal visual objects

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has thus been established that the size and the spacing of inducing elements influence both global (Dresp, 1992;Dresp, Lorenceau, & Bonnet, 1990;Watanabe & Oyama, 1988) and local (Dresp & Bonnet, 1991, 1993, 1995 sensitivity to illusory contours and brightness in the Kanizsa square. Similar size-spacing constraints seem to influence the magnitude of apparent brightness in the Ehrenstein figure (Zucker & Davis, 1988) and the clarity of illusory contours in stimuli consisting of two phase-shifted gratings and other line configurations (Lesher & Mingolla, 1993;Shipley & Kellman, 1992).…”

Section: Illusory Form With Inducers Of Opposite Contrast Polarity: Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Illusory form with inducers of opposite contrast polarity: Evidence for multistage integration

Dresp¹,

Salvano-Pardieu²,

Brunet³

1996

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perception of brightness differences in Ehrenstein figures and of illusory contours in phaseshifted line gratings was investigated as a function of the contrast polarity of the inducing elements. Wepresented either continuous lines or line-like arrangements composed of aligned dashes or dots whose spacing was varied. A yes/no procedure was used in which naive observers had to decide whether or not they perceived a brightness difference in a given Ehrenstein figure or an illusory contour in a phase-shifted line grating. The results show that brightness differences are perceived to some extent in Ehrenstein figures with inducers of opposite polarity of contrast; however, the percentage of yes responses was systematically lower and response times were longer than for figures with inducers of the same polarity. Phase-shifted line gratings with lines of opposite polarity of contrast yielded stronger illusory contours and shorter response times than those with lines of the same polarity. When the sign of contrast was not the same within a given line of induction, neither differences in brightness nor illusory contours were perceived. The results suggest that the mechanisms that lead to apparent differences in brightness are more sensitive to input of the same contrast polarity, the mechanisms generating illusory contours more sensitive to input of opposite polarity. The data are discussed in the light of a multistage approach to illusory form perception and some implications for cortical models of illusory contour integration are discussed.

show abstract

“…Our model suggests that the morphology of the paracontrast function is determined by a combination of a prolonged inhibition, brief inhibition, and facilita- We repeated Experiment 2, using a contour identification task instead of surface brightness. According to several studies, the processing of illusory contours and figure-ground segregation are independent of the contrast polarity of the inducers (Dresp & Bonnet, 1995;Peterhans & von der Heydt, 1989;Zhou, Friedman, & von der Heydt, 2000). Moreover, contour processing has been proposed to be insensitive to contrast polarity by several modeling studies (Grossberg, 1994(Grossberg, , 2003Yen & Finkel, 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%