1. Chapter 5: Perceiving Objects and Scenes

2. Overview of Questions Why do some perceptual psychologists say “the whole differs from the sum of its parts?” How do “rules of thumb” help us in arriving at a perception of the environment? How do we distinguish objects from their background? Why are even the most sophisticated computers unable to match a person’s ability to perceive objects?

3. The Challenge of Object Perception The stimulus on the receptors is ambiguous. –Inverse projection problem: An image on the retina can be caused by an infinite number of objects. Objects can be hidden or blurred. –Occlusions are common in the environment.

4. Figure 5.3 The principle behind the inverse projection problem. The page of the book that is near the eye creates a rectangular image on the retina. However, this image could also have been created by the larger more distant square, by the tilted trapezoid and by many other stimuli. This is why we say that the image on the retina is ambiguous.

5. The Challenge of Object Perception - continued Objects look different from different viewpoints –Viewpoint invariance: the ability to recognize an object regardless of the viewpoint –This is a difficult task for computers to perform

6. The Structuralist Approach Approach established by Wundt (late 1800s) –States that perceptions are created by combining elements called sensations –Structuralism could not explain apparent movement –Stimulated the founding of Gestalt psychology in the 1920s by Wertheimer, Koffka, and Kohler

7. Figure 5.9 According to structuralism, a number of sensations (represented by the dots) adds up to create our perception of the face.

8. Figure 5.10 (a) Wertheimer’s demonstration of movement perception.

9. Figure 5.11 (a) This can be seen as a cube floating in front of eight discs or as a cube seen through eight holes. In the first case, the edges of the cube appear as illusory contours. (b) The cube without the black circles. Based on “Organizational Determinants of Subjective Contour: The Subjective Necker Cube,” by D. R. Bradley and H. M. Petry, 1977, American Journal of Psychology, 90, 252-262. American Psychological Association.

10. The Gestalt Approach The whole differs from the sum of its parts. –Perception is not built up from sensations, but is a result of perceptual organization. Principles of perceptual organization. –Pragnanz - every stimulus is seen as simply as possible –Similarity - similar things are grouped together

11. Figure 5.13 (a) This is usually perceived as five circles, not as the nine shapes in (b).

12. Figure 5.14 (a) Perceived as horizontal rows or vertical columns or both. (b) Perceived as vertical columns.

13. Principles of Perceptual Organization - continued Good continuation - connected points resulting in straight or smooth curves belong together –Lines are seen as following the smoothest path Proximity - things that are near to each other are grouped together Common region - elements in the same region tend to be grouped together

14. Figure 5.17 Because of good continuation, we perceive this pattern as continuous interwoven strands.

15. Principles of Perceptual Organization - continued Meaningfulness or familiarity - things form groups if they appear familiar or meaningful Uniform connectedness - connected region of visual properties are perceived as single unit Synchrony - elements occurring at the same time are seen as belonging together Common fate - things moving in same direction are grouped together

16. Figure 5.18 Grouping by (a) proximity; (b) common region; (c) connectedness; and (d) synchrony. Synchrony occurs when yellow lights blink on and off together.

17. Figure 5.20 The Forest Has Eyes by Bev Doolittle (1984). Can you find the 12 faces in this picture? E-mail the author at bruceg@email.arizona.edu for the solution.bruceg@email.arizona.edu

18. Perceptual Segregation Figure-ground segregation - determining what part of environment is the figure so that it “stands out” from the background –Properties of figure and ground The figure is more “thinglike” and more memorable than ground. The figure is seen in front of the ground. The ground is more uniform and extends behind figure. The contour separating figure from ground belongs to the figure (border ownership).

19. Figure 5.21 A version of Rubin’s reversible face-vase figure.

20. Figure 5.22 (a) When the vase is perceived as figure, it is seen in front of a homogeneous dark background. (b) When the faces are seen as figure, they are seen in front of a homogeneous light background.

21. Figure-Ground Segregation - continued Factors that determine which area is figure: –Elements located in the lower part of displays –Units that are symmetrical –Elements that are small –Units that are oriented vertically –Elements that have meaning

22. Figure 5.24 (a) Stimuli from Vecera et al. (2002). (b) Percentage of trials on which lower or left areas were seen as figure.

23. Figure 5.25 Examples of how (a) symmetry, (b) size, c) orientation, and meaning contribute to perceiving an area as figure.

24. Recognition-by-Components Theory Objects are recognized by volumetric features called geons –Theory proposes there are 36 geons that combine to make all 3-D objects. –Geons include cylinders, rectangular solids, and pyramids.

25. Figure 5.27 (a) Some geons. (b) Some objects created from these geons. The numbers on the objects indicate which geons are present. Note that recognizable objects can be formed by combining just two or three geons. Also note that the relations between the geons matter, as illustrated by the cup and the pail. Adapted from “Recognition-by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding,” by I. Biederman, 1987, Psychological Review, 94(2), pp. 115-147 {figures 3, 6, 7 and 11}, Copyright © 1987 with permission from the author and the American Psychological Association.

26. Recognition by Components - continued Properties of geons –View-invariant properties - aspects of the object that remain visible from different viewpoints –Non-accidental properties - properties of edges in the retinal image that correspond with the 3-D environment –Discriminability - the ability to distinguish geons from one another –Principle of componential recovery - the ability to recognize an object if we can identify its geons

27. Figure 5.29 (a) Rectangular-solid geon. The highlighted three parallel edges are the non-accidental property for this geon; (b) Cylindrical geon. The highlighted two parallel edges are the non-accidental property of this geon.

28. Figure 5.31 (a) It is difficult to identify the object behind the mask, because its geons have been obscured. (b) Now that it is possible to identify geons, the object can be identified as a flashlight. From “Recognition- by-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding,” by I. Biederman, 1987, Psychological Review, 94(2), pp. 115-147, copyright © 1987, with permission from the author and the American Psychological Association.

29. Perceiving Scenes and Objects in Scenes A scene contains: –background elements. –objects organized in meaningful ways with each other and the background. Difference between objects and scenes –A scene is acted within –An object is acted upon

30. Perceiving Scenes and Objects in Scenes - continued Research on perceiving gists of scenes –Potter showed that people can do this when a picture is only presented for 1/4 second –Fei-Fei used masking to show that the overall gist is perceived first followed by details.

31. Perceiving Scenes and Objects in Scenes - continued Global image features of scenes –Degree of naturalness –Degree of openness –Degree of roughness –Degree of expansion –Color Such features are holistic and perceived rapidly

32. Regularities in the Environment Physical regularities - regularly occurring physical properties –Oblique effect - people perceive horizontals and vertical more easily than other orientations –Uniform connectedness - objects are defined by areas of the same color or texture –Light-from-above heuristic - light in natural environment comes from above us

33. Figure 5.37 (a) Some of these discs are perceived as jutting out and some are perceived as indentations. Why? Light coming from above would illuminate (b) the top of a shape that is jutting out and (c) the bottom of the indentation.

34. Regularities in the Environment - continued Semantic regularities - characteristics associated with the functions of scenes –Study by Hollingworth (2005) Observers were presented with a scene either with or without a target object. They then saw the target followed by a blank screen and were asked where the object was in the scene or where they would expect it to be. Both groups could accurately predict where the object would be.

35. Figure 5.39 (a) One of the scenes shown to Hollingworth’s (2005) observers. In this picture the target object is the barbell, although observers do not know this when they are viewing the scene. “Non-target” scenes are the same but do not include the target. (b) Circles indicate the observers’ judgments of the position of the target object for trials in which they had seen the object in the scene (small circle) and trials in which the object had not appeared in the scene (larger circle). See text for details.

36. Regularities in the Environment - continued Palmer experiment –Observers saw a context scene flashed briefly, followed by a target picture. –Results showed that: Targets congruent with the context were identified 80% of the time. Targets that were incongruent were only identified 40% of the time.

37. Figure 5.40 Stimuli used in Palmer’s (1975) experiment. The scene at the left is presented first, and the observer is then asked to identify one of the objects on the right.

38. Role of Inference in Perception Theory of unconscious inference –Created by Helmholtz (1866/1911) to explain why stimuli can be interpreted in more than one way –Main Principle - perceptions are result of unconscious assumptions about the environment –Likelihood principle - objects are perceived based on what is most likely to have caused the pattern Modern researchers use Bayesian inference that take probabilities into account

39. Figure 5.42 The display in (a) is usually interpreted as being (b) -- a blue rectangle in front of a red rectangle. It could, however, be (c) -- a blue rectangle and an appropriately positioned six-sided red figure.

40. The Physiology of Object and Scene Perception Neurons in the visual cortex respond to Gestalt grouping principles. Contextual modulation - stimuli outside of a neuron’s receptive field can affect neural firing –Happens when these stimuli follow good continuation –Happens when the stimuli are perceived as part of the figure

41. Figure 5.43 How a neuron in the striate cortex (V1) responds to (a) an oriented bar inside the neuron’s receptive field (the small square); (b) the same bar surrounded by randomly oriented bars; (c) the bar when it becomes part of a group of vertical bars, due to the principles of similarity and good continuation. Adapted from Zapadia, M. K. Ito, M., Gilbert, C. G., & Westheimer, G. (1995). Improvement in visual sensitivity by changes in local context: Parallel studies in human observers and in V1 of alert monkeys. Neuron, 15, 843- 856.

42. Figure 5.44 How a neuron in V1 responds to oriented lines presented to the neuron’s receptive field (green rectangle). (a) The neuron responded when the bars on the receptive field are part of a figure, but there is response when (b) the same pattern is not figure Adapted from Lamme, V. A. F. (1995). The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 1605- 1615.

43. Brain Modules Involved in Perceiving Faces Fusiform face area (FFA) - responds only to faces Amygdala (AG) - activated by emotional aspects of faces Superior temporal sulcus (STS) - responds to where the person is looking and to mouth movements Frontal Cortex (FC) - activated when evaluating facial attractiveness

44. Figure 5.45 The human brain, showing some of the areas in involved in perceiving faces: FC = frontal cortex; STS = superior temporal sulcus; FG = fusiform gyrus; OC = occipital cortex; AG = amygdala. Note that the labels indicate a general area of cortex, but not the overall extent of the area. Also, the amygdala is located deep inside the cortex, approximately under the label shown here.

45. Identifying an Object: Is That Harrison Ford? Grill-Spector experiment –Region-of-interest approach: the FFA for each person was determined first by: Showing participants faces and non- faces Finding the area that responded preferentially to faces

46. Grill-Spector Experiment FFA in each participant was monitored. On each trial, participants were shown either: –a picture of Harrison Ford’s face. –a picture of another person’s face. –a random texture. –All stimuli were shown for 50 ms followed by a random-pattern mask. –Participants were to indicate what they saw. 60 pictures of each type were presented.

47. Figure 5.46 Procedure for the Grill-Spector et al. (2004) experiment. See text for details.

48. Grill-Spector Experiment - continued For trials that only included Harrison Ford’s face, results showed that FFA activation: –was greatest when picture was correctly identified as Ford. –was less when picture was identified as other object. –Showed little response when there was no identification of a face Neural processing is associated with both the presentation of the stimulus and with the response to the stimulus.

49. Figure 5.47 Results of Grille-Spector et al. (2004) experiment for trials in which Harrison Ford’s face was presented.

50. Perceiving an Object - Sunburst or Butterfly? Experiment by Sheinberg & Logothetis Monkey was trained to pull two levers: one for a sunburst one for a butterfly Binocular rivalry was used - each picture shown to one eye at the same time Neuron in the IT cortex that responded only to the butterfly was monitored. Firing was vigorous for only the butterfly

51. Perceiving an Object - Face or House? Experiment by Tong et al. –Binocular rivalry used again with people –Picture of a house shown to one eye and a face to another –Participants pushed button to indicate perception. –fMRI showed an increase in activity in Parahippocampal place area for the house Fusiform face area for the face

52. Figure 5.49 Observers in Tong and coworkers (1998) experiment viewed the overlapping red house and green face through red-green glasses, so the house image was presented to the right eye and the face image to the left eye. The observers’ perception alternated back and forth between the face and the house, due to binocular rivalry. When the observers perceived the house, activity occurred in the parahippocampal place area (PPA), in the left and right hemispheres (red ellipses). When the observers perceived the face, activity occurred in the fusiform face area (FFA) in the left hemisphere (green ellipse).

53. What is a Person Looking at? Experiment by Kamitani & Tong –Gratings with different orientations were presented to participants. –Responses from fMRI voxels were measured. –Activity patterns across voxels varies by grating orientation. –An orientation decoder was used to analyze the voxel activity. The decoder could accurately predict which orientation had been presented.

54. Figure 5.50 (a) Observers in Kamitani and Tong’s (2005) experiment viewed oriented gratings like the one on the left. The cubes in the brain represent the response of 6 voxels. The activity of 400 voxels was monitored in the experiment. (b) Results for two orientations. The gratings are the stimulus presented to the observer. The line is the orientation predicted by the orientation decoder. The decoder was able to accurately predict the presentation of all eight of the orientations tested.

55. Figure 5.51 The overlapping grating stimulus used by Kaminiti and Tong’s (2005) experiment in which observers were told to pay attention to one of the orientations at a time.

56. What is a Person Looking at? - continued Experiment by Kay et al. –Presented 1,750 photographs to an observer –Measured activity in 500 voxels to Position of image Orientation of image Degree of detail in image –Decoder was tested by using new images Performance was 92% and 72% for two observers