ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2018
The role of contour polarity, objectness, and regularities in haptic and visual perception.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regularities like symmetry (mirror reflection) and repetition (translation) play an important role in both visual and haptic (active touch) shape perception. Altering figure-ground factors to change what is perceived as an object influences regularity detection. For vision, symmetry is usually easier to detect within one object, whereas repetition is easier to detect across two objects. For haptics, we have not found this interaction between regularity type and objectness (Cecchetto & Lawson, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 103-125, 2017; Lawson, Ajvani, & Cecchetto, Experimental Psychology, 63, 197-214, 2016). However, our studies used repetition stimuli with mismatched concavities, convexities, and luminance, and so had mismatched contour polarities. Such stimuli may be processed differently to stimuli with matching contour polarities. We investigated this possibility. For haptics, speeded symmetry and repetition detection for novel, planar shapes was similar. Performance deteriorated strikingly if contour polarity mismatched (keeping objectness constant), whilst there was a modest disadvantage for between-2objects:facing-sides compared to within-1object:outer-sides comparisons (keeping contour polarity constant). For the same task for vision, symmetry detection was similar to haptics (strong costs for mismatched contour polarity, weaker costs for between-2objects:facing-sides comparisons), but repetition detection was very different (weak costs for mismatched contour polarity, strong benefits for between-2objects:facing-sides comparisons). Thus, objectness was less influential than contour polarity for both haptic and visual symmetry detection, and for haptic repetition detection. However, for visual repetition detection, objectness effects reversed direction (within-1object:outer-sides comparisons were harder) and were stronger than contour polarity effects. This pattern of results suggests that regularity detection reflects information extraction as well as regularity distributions in the physical world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.