Alisha Chohan
6435958
PSY3108
Dr. Levente Orban
LAB 2- Object Perception
Part 1: Qualitative Observation of a Multistable Figure
Initial Observations:
After performing a qualitative observation of the figure it could be easily deduced
that the image was a cube. The cube structure appears to be in a 3-D form. Though
the concrete lines of the cube are not evident, perceptually it is apparent as to what
the shape is. In order to see the whole image of the cube, a holistic approach to the
image must be done. It must be viewed as a whole, rather than segregated portion of
the dark circles and white background lines. Moreover, the figure that is seen stands
out explicitly from the background circles. It appears to be distinct from the
background circles and can be easily concluded that it is a three dimensional image
of a cube.
Further Observations:
(1) I saw 2 interpretations of the figure. They both were composed of the 3-D shape.
Initially I only saw that one form of the image; as “down and to the left” cube. But,
after re-analysis of the image again, I was able to see the up and to the right cube as
well. To see the second form of the cube took additional effort, as my perception was
fixated on seeing only the original version of the cube. I had to stare closely at the
image to perceive the second portion of the cube.
(2) I saw both interpretations of the cube. At first glance, only the down and to the
left portion of the image was seen. But, further closer investigation of the image
allowed in determining the second version of the cube. My perception, after I had
seen the 2 images in lab portion, allowed in shifting the image from both forms. I
feel that the “pop out phenomenon” occurred initially. The down and to the left
version of the cube immediately popped out regardless of the background dark
circles playing a distractive role. Thus, to find the second form of the cube (the up
and to the right) was a bit tedious. This is because after the initial cube form
emerged, it led to the binding of the cubic features. This is because attention was
focused on only that specific location in the visual field. In order to make the shift, it
was a bit easier after I had seen the image of the up and to the right cube that I was
supposed to perceive. This allowed in having past experience of what image was
supposed to be perceived. Thus, according to the field of Gestalt Psychology the
prior interaction with what the cube was like, allowed for its perception when
viewed in the image again. The visual system had to extract the primitive
information and then the challenge of correctly assembling the specific object form.
As the memory of the new version of the cube was bound with the object perceived
lead to the identification of the up and to the right cube. No tricks were used to the
make the shift apart from having the initial exposure to the latter version of the cube
and then attempting to see that specific image.
(3) The impression of the lines that are not drawn, were perceived to be as “drawn
in” my view. I had the feeling that they were actually drawn in and were present.
The strength of the perception did not change much in reference to if I saw it
floating out vs. behind; in both cases it seemed as if the lines were actually there.
The law of good continuation was at effect in this as the clusters of the individual
location of the circles made it seem to me as if the items were organized into figures;
in this case a cube. Also, the interacting pattern of the dark circles also allowed for
the perception that it was a closed object with lines drawn in and 3D in form though
it was 2D in nature.
(4) The stimulus is 3D in nature. Also, the cube’s external perimeter was perceived
to be present even though as stated it was an illusion.
(5) After reading the background material the observation that I had somewhat
changed. I was able to see a different version of the cube from what I had primarily
perceived. Moreover, the observations changed due to the prior interaction I had
with the newer version of the cube’s image. The exposure allowed me to see the 3D
version of the cube in its second format. Also, as the image is illusory as the
arrangement of the discs make it perceivable. After reflecting upon this, the
observations did give way to the view that white background makes the impression
of the lines look like they are there.
Part 2:
(1)
The objects that I drew the geons of are: an ice cream cone and a lamp in the second
picture.
(2) In order to break down the objects into their geometric ions (geons) it was fairly
easy as only simple objects were used. The first object was an ice cream cone that
was composed of a geometric cone and a half sphere shape. Also, the latter was a
lamp; it was composed of 3 geons, which were also basic in shape. The difficulty
level was negligible in terms of the 2 objects. The first object had 2 geons and the
second object was composed of 3 geons.
(3) The two objects can be differentiated based on their geon structural description.
This is because of the recognition of components solution that is used. The visual
objects are inspected on the simple geometric volumes and then they are later
assembled to create a specific 3-dimensional representation. So, the first object has
a geon of a half sphere and a cone shape. This object has a fairly simple combination
off the geons. And due to the cone geon it can easily be a strong hint that it is an ice
cream cone. Moreover, the second object has a geon structure of 3 components; two
different forms of cylinders and a tube geon. Since it a unique lamp due to the bent
tube, based on the geons a number of conclusions can be derived. Thus, for the
second object it may not be as simple to determine it is a lamp through the geons.
(4) Our visual system must be able to generalize across the multiple views of the
objects. Multiple views imply that the object from different angles must be
recognizable. In reference to the first one I think it can be recognized as an ice
cream cone. This is because the geon of a cone has one the same type of shape when
viewed from any angle. The same goes for the sphere, regardless of which angle it is
viewed from, it stylistically looks the same. The second object is a bit unique in
nature as it is a lamp. Since the tube geon component of it is not similar from all
angles, when initially viewed depending on the degree it would look different. Also,
the cylindrical components of it can give away that it may be a lamp, but the
evidence is not precise enough as the tubular geon is the missing link (tube looks
different based on the angle observed).
(5) Based on the observations of the lab and the personal experience I agree with
Bierderman’s geon structural description model. This is because all three
dimensional objects can be broken down into their smaller constitutional portions
termed as the geometric ions (geons). Since everyday household items were used
(ice cream cone and lamp), it was easy to determine them based on their geons.
Small set of geons gave rise to the common objects.