Treffer: Does exposure within an experiment affect the influence of familiar parts versus wholes on figure assignment?

Title:
Does exposure within an experiment affect the influence of familiar parts versus wholes on figure assignment?
Authors:
Flowers CS; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. flowe186@umn.edu., Peterson MA; Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.; Cognitive Science Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Source:
Attention, perception & psychophysics [Atten Percept Psychophys] 2026 Jan 07; Vol. 88 (2), pp. 43. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Jan 07.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101495384 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1943-393X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19433921 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Atten Percept Psychophys Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2011- : New York : Springer
Original Publication: Austin, Tex. : Psychonomic Society
References:
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 Nov;17(4):1075-89. (PMID: 1837298)
J Neurosci. 2005 Nov 2;25(44):10239-46. (PMID: 16267231)
J Vis. 2017 Feb 1;17(2):15. (PMID: 28245496)
Percept Psychophys. 1994 Nov;56(5):551-64. (PMID: 7991352)
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Mar;64(3):608-24. (PMID: 21069619)
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Apr;20(2):299-316. (PMID: 8189194)
Vision Res. 2014 Apr;97:65-73. (PMID: 24582768)
Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Apr;3(4):142-151. (PMID: 10322468)
Psychol Bull. 1957 Jul;54(4):269-96. (PMID: 13465923)
Percept Psychophys. 2005 May;67(4):727-40. (PMID: 16134465)
Hippocampus. 2012 Oct;22(10):1965-77. (PMID: 22987675)
Vision (Basel). 2022 Mar 21;6(1):. (PMID: 35324604)
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6. (PMID: 9176952)
Front Psychol. 2014 May 27;5:482. (PMID: 24904495)
Percept Psychophys. 1997 Nov;59(8):1280-96. (PMID: 9401461)
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 Aug;82(6):3096-3111. (PMID: 32394068)
Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Sep 15;9:291. (PMID: 28966591)
Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1549-67. (PMID: 10788658)
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Aug;83(6):2709-2727. (PMID: 33880711)
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Apr;24(2):441-62. (PMID: 9554093)
J Exp Psychol. 1953 May;45(5):360-8. (PMID: 13052875)
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Mar;48(4):831-53. (PMID: 20074580)
Cereb Cortex. 2012 Nov;22(11):2680-91. (PMID: 22172579)
Cognition. 1998 Jul;67(1-2):111-45. (PMID: 9735538)
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 14;15(8):e0224471. (PMID: 32797090)
J Vis. 2018 Dec 3;18(13):3. (PMID: 30508428)
Cortex. 2015 Nov;72:1-4. (PMID: 26427792)
Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 21;14:1243405. (PMID: 37809293)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2025 Jun 11;21(6):e1012269. (PMID: 40498807)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Familiarity; Figure-ground perception; Object detection; Object perception; Parts and wholes; Past experience; Perceptual organization; Repetition
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20260106 Date Completed: 20260106 Latest Revision: 20260109
Update Code:
20260109
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12775106
DOI:
10.3758/s13414-025-03179-3
PMID:
41495580
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

Recurring questions in visual perception concern the role of experience and the relationship between parts and wholes. We investigated these questions in an experiment in which observers reported where they perceived a figure relative to a central border in bipartite displays in which the region on one side depicted either: (1) an identifiable configuration of a familiar basic-level object in its typical upright orientation (a "whole" familiar configuration); (2) an inverted version of (1); (3) a part rearranged (PR) version of (1) comprising the same parts as the upright familiar configuration; (4) an inverted version of (3). Previous research showed that regions are perceived as figures more often when they depict upright familiar configurations rather than inverted or PR configurations, supporting claims that familiar configurations are figural priors, but familiar parts are not. Here, displays depicting the four configuration types were counterbalanced over four trial blocks to elucidate the role of parts versus wholes in figure assignment and to examine whether previous experience with one configuration altered performance with another. Results showed that inverted familiar configurations were weaker figural priors than upright, but were stronger than PR configurations, revealing the importance of inter-part connectivity. Moreover, a reliable effect of block was observed for all configurations, revealing a role for familiar parts in figure assignment. Finally, no influence of the type of configuration viewed in block 1 was observed for any configuration in block 2. We attribute the pattern of results to neural populations representing parts and wholes of well-known objects.
(© 2026. The Author(s).)

Declarations. Conflicts of interest: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethics approval: Approval was obtained from the Human Subjects Protection Program at the University of Arizona. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Open practices statement: The bipartite stimuli are available online ( https://osf.io/j9kz2/ ). The remaining data, materials, and code for the experiment are available upon request. The experiment was not preregistered.