Overview of Perceptual Organization: Principles, Methods, Findings & Theory

Based on a series of lectures given At BISCA 2001 Bolzano, Italy James R. Pomerantz Department of Psychology Rice University Houston, Texas, USA
I -1

Perceptual Organization in the 1930s: Karl Dallenbachs photograph

I -2

Perceptual Organization in the 1970s: R. C. Jamess Photograph

I -3

Perceptual Organization in the 2000s: Bev Doolittles Painting

I -4

Key Issues Raised by

Dallenbachs Cow
Where are the objects in the image? Where does one object stop and the next one start? Which edges represent illumination changes and which reflectance changes? What are the objects? What is the role of knowledge, top-down processing in segmentation and identification?
I -5

Road Map for Lecture

What is Perceptual Organization, as I approach it? Why do I think this problem is important? Phenomena, Methods, and Findings Theories: Specific and General Remaining Questions, Future Directions
I -6

What Is Perceptual Organization?

the processes by which the bits and pieces of visual information that are available in the retinal image are structured into the larger units of perceived objects and their interrelations Stephen E. Palmer, Vision Science, 1999

I -7

What Is Perceptual Organization?

Perceptual Organization is central to the key question of perception: how do we make the leap from information detected by our sensory receptors to our perceptions of the world? This requires not just the detection of information by the organization of that information into veridical percepts. Pomerantz & Kubovy, 1986

I -8

What Is Perceptual Organization?

Perceptual organization is the process by which particular relationships among potentially separate elements (including parts, features, and dimensions) are perceived (selected from alternative relationships) and guide the interpretation of those elements in sum, how we process sensory information in context.
Pomerantz & Kubovy, 1986
I -9

Why Study Perceptual Organization?

It is arguably among the earliest steps in perception It is an essential tep, solving basic questions that must be resolved before further image analysis takes place

I -10

Note: The Problem of PO Extends Beyond Images of Animals!

I -11

There Are Many, Many Others

I -12

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -13

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -14

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -15

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -16

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -17

More Classic Examples of Perceptual Organization

I -18

Component Issues in Perceptual Organization

Grouping and segmentation
Dalmatian, Laws of Grouping, Part Whole relations

Figure ground segregation

Rubins Vase; Doolittles ponies

Emergent Features
Subjective Contours, Configural Superiority Effects

Perceptual coupling (constancies)

Shepards Boxtops, Ames Room

Multistability
Necker cube; Barber Pole

Globality, Simplicity
I -19

Grouping and Segmentation

From Wertheimer, 1923

I -20

Lower illustration from Koffka

I -21

I -22

I -23

I -24

Grouping of Separated Elements

I -25

Grouping of Separated Elements

I -26

Figure Ground Segregation

From Rubin

I -27

Rubins Figure Brought to Life

I -28

I -29

From Kanizsa

I -30

From Escher

I -31

I -32

From Bregman

I -33

From Rock

I -34

Emergent Features
(the focus of my 2nd and 3rd lectures)

From Wertheimer, 1912: Phi (or beta) apparent motion, plus the Correspondence problem from Grouping
I -35

From Kanizsa

I -36

From Coren,Ward, and Enns, Sensation & Perception.

I -37

Configural Superiority Effects

I -38

Virtual lines and edges

I -39

Perceptual Coupling

From Shepard, 1981: Two two yellow parallelograms have identical shapes.
I -40

The Ames Room

Note: Kubovy and others dont always regard coupling as a Gestalt problem

I -41

Multistability
From Necker, Kopferman

I -42

From Ternus: Phenomenal Identity, or, the Matching Unit problem

I -43

More Ternus

Short ISI (0 msec)

Long ISI (200 msec?)

I -44

From Boring

I -45

From Wallach Wallachs overlooked variation: polka dots

I -46

Globality
Configural effects work over large expanses of the visual field, not just local patches
Eg: color. We achieve color constancies by comparing wavelength distributions across the entire visual field. E.g.: the aperture problem in motion.

I -47

Simplicity & Prgnanz Pr (the minimum principle)

At the heart of the Gestalt approach.
Claim: We organize our percepts in the simplest way that is consistent with the information in the stimulus. Cf. distribution of electromagnetic fields.

I -48

Soap Bubble Metaphor

The soap bubble computes an answer to a complex problem, finding the simplest solution possible.

Question: Does the human perceptual system work in a similar fashion?

I -49

PO and the Gestalt Psychologists

Max Wertheimer Kurt Koffka Wolfgang Kohler
They identified the basic problem, in some respects in its current terms, and uncovered many of its phenomena. They attempted a theory as well, but it has has less impact.
I -50

The Key to Gestalt Effects: Non-Additivity

Stimulus A activates Representation A Stimulus B activates Representation B Q: Will Stimuli A + B activate:
Representations A + B Something additional beyond this Something less than this Something simply different from this?
I -51

Non-Additivities in Perception
Widely Heralded Slogan of Gestalt Psychology:
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts? No.

No, not the sum

Summing is a meaningless procedure Koffka, 1935

I -52

Non-Additivities in Perception
Rather,
The whole is different from the sum of its parts

Sometime greater than, sometimes less than, often different from Better to say the Gestalt claim was that elements interact non-linearly in perception.
I -53

Examples of Non-Additivities
All involve the emergence of new features Color Apparent Motion Orientation Subjective Contours

I -54

Orientation: Glass Patterns

I -55

Orientation: Glass Patterns

I -56

Orientation: Glass Patterns

I -57

Apparent Motion

I -58

Dunckers Rolling Wheel

I -59

Kanizsas Subjective Contours

I -60

Combine Subjective Contours with Apparent Motion

Reversed direction of apparent motion in the bottom panel compared with the top indicates non-additivitity and suggests the dominance of subjective contours in deciding what is moving. Bottom panel from Ramachandran
I -61

Gestalt Psychology in 2001?

Perceptual organization has languished in relative obscurity since the end of the Gestalt era In the latter half of the 1900s, vision scientists have generally ignored organizational issues, as though such things as grouping, part-whole relations, reference frames did not really matter, secure in their belief that linear systems analysis and single cell recording studies of cortical area V1 would lay bare the mysteries of perception The next frontier of vision science will be to solve the problems of perceptual organization and its effects on visual processing. Stephen Palmer, in press
I -62

On the Other Hand

Some of the researchers publishing on PO since 1950: Hochberg, Rock, Kanizsa, Treisman, Attneave, Garner, Spelke, Palmer, Kubovy, Gerbino, Shepard, Biederman, Metzger, Leeuwenberg, Metelli, Graham, Julesz, Kahneman, Miller, Neisser, Shepard, Wolfe. Reads like a Whos Who in Psychology.
I -63

Why is PO Such a Hard Problem?

Perceptual organization is difficult to study because it lies on the border between our experience of the world and unconscious perceptual processing. Even the term perceptual organization is ambiguous: it means both the outcome of perceptual processeshow things look and the mechanism that produces itthe psychophysical processes that precede awareness. Perceptual organization is difficult to study for a second reason: because it Involves both bottom-up and top-down processes. It islike respirationa semi-voluntary process Michael Kubovy, in press.
I -64

Grappling with Basic Concepts

Example: What is an object?
object is not an easy term to define. Indeed, textbooks with chapters on object perception generally just assume that we all know what is being talked about.
Jeremy Wolfe
I -65

Barriers to Understanding Perception

The problem of subjective experience Complexity of the stimulus, confounds Transparency of perception: The main barrier may be our own perceptual system!

I -66

The Proximal Stimulus

What object does this figure depict? How many objects are shown? Where are the object boundaries?
I -67

A Simpler Example

I -68

The Answer Revealed:

I -69

Organizing a Stimulus Is Work!

Looking at the last figure, it seems obvious that there are figures there, and clear how many there are and in what arrangement None of this is given for free, however; it must be computed by the visual system. The belief that the organization is in the stimulus and not computed is a fundamental error, one of two: the experience error and the stimulus error.
I -70

Paradox of PO
Everybody knows what it is, yet nobody seems to know what it is Its effects are robust and seemingly obvious Yet difficult to measure: Palmer, Kubovy Complicating matters: two errors we make.

I -71

The Stimulus and Experience Errors

In psychology we have often been warned against the stimulus error, i.e., against the danger of confusing our knowledge of the physical conditions of sensory experience with this experience as such. As I see it, another mistake, which I propose to call the experience error, is just as unfortunate. This error occurs when certain characteristics of sensory experience are inadvertently attributed to the mosaic of stimuli (Kohler 1929/47, p. 95).
I -72

The Stimulus Error

A presumption of what the stimulus is. We know that a physical object is built out of certain parts, so when we describe our perception, we use those same parts. Or, we enter a room lit with one candle, illuminate a second candle, and report that the room is now twice as bright. Striking counterexample: the Gelb Effect, where knowledge has little effect on perception.
I -73

The Experience Error

A presumption that our perception is governed by the stimulus array. We experience a percept that is organized, e.g., is segmented into regions, objects, and parts. So we assume that this organization is available in the proximal (retinal) image, rather than having to be computed on the image by our visual system.
I -74

An Example of These Errors?

This stimulus is described as a box with a line drawn across it, both containing a gap. Do we see it that way? If so, is it because we constructed it that way? And are these the real physical parts? (From Duncan, 1984)
I -75

An Example of These Errors?

Recall that this is a better description of the proximal stimulus? Are the parts directly represented here? Does this array support the notion of a box and a line with gaps?
I -76

Another Example?

Steve Palmer, Element Connectedness

I -77

The Link Between Perceptual Organization & Representation?

The key issues are: What in the stimulus is represented? How to represent elements in and out of context? PO defines the fundamental units and establishes the hierarchy in which they are later organized. The representation of a stimulus defines its organization.
I -78

Example: Multistability
Any one stimulus can have multiple representations Each of these may respond to a different organization Thus, representation and organization issues are fundamentally intertwined.
I -79

Roadmap to the Phenomena, Methods, and Findings of PO

Phenomena: Grouping, figure-ground segregation, multistability, constancies Methods: demonstration vs. behavioral measures Findings: Many examples, but based organizational phenomena appear to govern how the rest of perception functions.
I -80

Theories of Perceptual Organization

Lists of Laws General summarizing principles Full Blown Theories (Marrs categories)
Computational Cognitive Neuropsychological

I -81

Laws of Grouping
There are many, many

I -82

Helson, 1933
Listed 114 Gestalt Laws! Others estimate that over 700 have been proposed over the decades. Boring, 1942: narrowed them down to 14.

I -83

Borings 14
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Naturalness of form Figure and ground Articulation Good and poor forms Strong and weak forms Open and closed forms Dynamic basis of form
I -84

Borings 14, continued

8. Persistence of form 9. Constancy of form 10. Symmetry of form 11. Integration of similars and adjacents 12. Meaningfulness of forms 13. Fusion of forms 14. Transposition of forms.
I -85

Borings 14, continued

Note that Borings list of 14 omits some important principles, including
Good continuation Area Convexity Common fate One-sided function of contour
I -86

Vagueness of These Laws

Number 5: Strong & Weak Forms A strong form coheres and resists disintegration by analysis into parts of by fusion with another form.

Many of these laws are a bit vague

I -87

General Principle of Grouping

Similarity Proximity = similar location Common fate = similar motion Similarity is too broad a term to be useful?

I -88

General Principle of Grouping

Prgnanz (global minimum principle): return of the soap bubbles
Dynamic self-distribution if the kind of function which Gestalt Psychology believes to be essential in neurological and psychological theory. Khler, 1929

I -89

Definition of Prgnanz
Psychological organization will always be as good as the prevailing conditions allow. In this definition the term good is undefined. It embraces such properties as regularity, symmetry, simplicity and others Koffka, 1935, building on Wertheimer

I -90

Issues Entailed in Prgnanz

Nature of simplification How much distortion to allow (illusions, etc.) at the expense of veridicality? Simplify the process of perception or the outcome? Quantification: How to Measure Simplicity? Work of Attneave, Garner, Leeuwenberg, Mumford How to test the claim? Do our perceptions minimize complexity? Is this plausible given evolution?

I -91

Alternative to Prgnanz: Likelihood Principle

From Helmholtz, 1910 Definition: Sensory elements will be organized into the most probable objects or event (distal stimulus) in the environment consistent with the sensory data (the proximal stimulus)
I -92

Major Advocates of Likelihood Principle

Helmholtz Hebb Hochberg Gregory Brunswik Rock
I -93

Key Issues for Likelihood Principle

Major Idea: We organize our percepts in the way that is most likely to be correct
Evolutionarily plausible Question: how to determine whats most likely (Brunwick, Geisler, Palmer)? How to test?

I -94

Challenges to Prgnanz
Kanizsa: many devastating counterexamples

I -95

Challenges to Prgnanz
Attneave, Rock: the search for symmetry If symmetry is so important, why is our search for it so brief and unsuccessful?

I -96

Challenges to Likelihood
Impossible Figures

I -97

Could a Prgnanz Bias Be Useful?

Attneave, 1982: Likelihood Principle can accommodate Prgnanz
Simplicity is a diagnostic property of stimuli If a stimulus can be organized simply, that is probably the correct organization (Cf. Symmetry, parallelism as a non-accidental property).

I -98

Attneaves Point
A possible distal source that contains certain regularities is more probable than one that does not, or one that contains them to a lesser degree. His idea was subsequently echoed by Rock, Pomerantz & Kubovy, and Palmer Palmer: Simplicity acts as a surrogate for likelihood, since simple organizations are likely to be correct.
I -99

Mach, 1906
The visual sense acts therefore in conformity with the principle of economy, and, at the same time, in conformity with the principle of probability.

I -100