No evidence for surface organization in Kanizsa configurations during continuous flash suppression

被引:28
|
作者
Moors, Pieter [1 ]
Wagemans, Johan [1 ]
van Ee, Raymond [1 ,2 ,3 ]
de-Wit, Lee [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leuven, Dept Brain & Cognit, Expt Psychol Lab, Tiensestr 102,Box 3711, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Donders Inst, Dept Biophys, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Philips Res Labs, Dept Brain Body & Behav, Eindhoven, Netherlands
关键词
Visual awareness; Continuous flash suppression; Figure-ground organization; Illusory contours; Kanizsa stimulus; DEFAULT BAYES FACTORS; PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION; ILLUSORY CONTOURS; ATTENTION; SEGREGATION; ORIENTATION; ACTIVATION; AWARENESS; STIMULI; CORTEX;
D O I
10.3758/s13414-015-1043-x
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Does one need to be aware of a visual stimulus for it to be perceptually organized into a coherent whole? The answer to this question regarding the interplay between Gestalts and visual awareness remains unclear. Using interocular suppression as the paradigm for rendering stimuli invisible, conflicting evidence has been obtained as to whether the traditional Kanizsa surface is constructed during interocular suppression. While Sobel and Blake (2003) and Harris, Schwarzkopf, Song, Bahrami, and Rees (2011) failed to find evidence for this, Wang, Weng, and He (2012) showed that standard configurations of Kanizsa pacmen would break interocular suppression faster than their rotated counterparts. In the current study, we replicated the findings by Wang et al. (2012) but show that neither an account based on the construction of a surface nor one based on the long-range collinearities in the standard Kanizsa configuration stimulus could fully explain the difference in breakthrough times. We discuss these findings in the context of differences in the amplitudes of the Fourier orientation spectra for all stimulus types. Thus, we find no evidence that the integration of separate elements takes place during interocular suppression of Kanizsa stimuli, suggesting that this Gestalt involving figure-ground assignment is not constructed when rendered nonconscious using interocular suppression.
引用
收藏
页码:902 / 914
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] No evidence for surface organization in Kanizsa configurations during continuous flash suppression
    Pieter Moors
    Johan Wagemans
    Raymond van Ee
    Lee de-Wit
    Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2016, 78 : 902 - 914
  • [2] Weighing the evidence for a dorsal processing bias under continuous flash suppression
    Ludwig, Karin
    Hesselmann, Guido
    CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION, 2015, 35 : 251 - 259
  • [3] Deconstructing continuous flash suppression
    Yang, Eunice
    Blake, Randolph
    JOURNAL OF VISION, 2012, 12 (03):
  • [4] Breaking continuous flash suppression: a new measure of unconscious processing during interocular suppression?
    Stein, Timo
    Hebart, Martin N.
    Sterzer, Philipp
    FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 5
  • [5] Privileged detection of conspecifics: Evidence from inversion effects during continuous flash suppression
    Stein, Timo
    Sterzer, Philipp
    Peelen, Marius V.
    COGNITION, 2012, 125 (01) : 64 - 79
  • [6] Unconscious response priming during continuous flash suppression
    Koivisto, Mika
    Grassini, Simone
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (02):
  • [7] Battle of the Mondrians: Investigating the Role of Unpredictability in Continuous Flash Suppression
    Han, Shui'Er
    Alais, David
    Blake, Randolph
    I-PERCEPTION, 2018, 9 (04):
  • [8] Influence of continuous flash suppression mask frequency on stimulus visibility
    Zhan, Minye
    Engelen, Tahnee
    de Gelder, Beatrice
    NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2019, 128 : 65 - 72
  • [9] Action priming is linked to visual perception in continuous flash suppression
    Valuch, Christian
    Mattler, Uwe
    JOURNAL OF VISION, 2019, 19 (07): : 1 - 25
  • [10] Does Evaluative Conditioning Depend on Awareness? Evidence From a Continuous Flash Suppression Paradigm
    Hoegden, Fabia
    Huetter, Mandy
    Unkelbach, Christian
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2018, 44 (10) : 1641 - 1657