On the relation between Kanizsa's bias towards convexity and the gestaltists prägnanz from the perspective of current in shape recognition
Axiomathes 13 (3-4):329-346 (2003)
|Abstract||What is the relation between Kanizsa's bias towards convexity and the Gestaltists' demonstrations that perceptual organization obeys a principle of pragnänz, or simplicity? Why should either kind of bias exist? Textbook accounts assign no functional role for these biases. Geon theory (Biederman 1987) proposes that we can understand these biases in terms of fundamental processes by which complex objects are decomposed into convex (or singly concave) regions at points of matched cusps according to the transversality regularity (Hoffman and Richards 1985). Such decomposition yields simple, convex parts segmented between the concavities. A shape that contains concavities is generally regarded as complex insofar as it can be decomposed into the regions, or parts, between the concavities. It is these simple parts that are the stable elements of shape, not the whole object. In fact, geon theory leads to the expectation that shape recognition proceeds most efficiently when the parts are good (in the pragnänz sense) but the object is bad!|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sarah C. Creel & Melanie A. Tumlin (2012). Online Recognition of Music Is Influenced by Relative and Absolute Pitch Information. Cognitive Science 36 (2):224-260.
Mark Van Hollebeke (2001). To Thine Own Self Be True. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 75:149-170.
Xiang Chen (2007). The Object Bias and the Study of Scientific Revolutions: Lessons From Developmental Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):479 – 503.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1996). Shape Properties and Perception. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview.
Robert Briscoe (2008). Vision, Action, and Make-Perceive. Mind and Language 23 (4):457-497.
Jan-Olof Eklundh & Stefan Carlsson (1998). Appearance is More Than Shape, Illumination, and Pose. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):470-471.
D. J. Bennett (2012). Seeing Shape: Shape Appearances and Shape Constancy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):487-518.
Manish Singh & Barbara Landau (1998). Parts of Visual Shape as Primitives for Categorization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):36-37.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #232,381 of 549,070 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?