Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “FORM PERCEPTION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1991

A study of the effect of structural information and familiarity in form perception.

Two experiments were carried out to investigate the influence of structural information and familiarity on the processing of visual forms. Pairs of "well" structured and nameable and "poorly" structured and non-nameable fragmented forms were employed as stimuli. The effects of structure and familiarity were assessed by manipulating the visual hemifield of presentation and the task. In Experiment 1 stimuli were judged as being either in the same orientation or mirror-reversed, a task that does not require high-level semantic information to be processed. Experiment 2 required physically identical forms to be matched, which may use either physical or name information. In Experiment 1 "same" judgements were equivalent for both types of stimuli, and "different" judgements were longer for the "poorly" structured (non-nameable) forms. In Experiment 2 there was little overall difference between "well" and "poorly" structured forms, though response times to "well" structured (nameable) forms were slowed for right-visual-field presentations. It is suggested that familiarity may not be sufficient to provide a perceptual advantage for nameable forms, as the advantage for nameable stimuli was confined to "same" judgements in Experiment 1 and response times were shorter for non-nameable stimuli in Experiment 2. Rather, performance depends upon factors such as the computation of global shape (due to structural properties of collinearity and closure) and on the use of different kinds or representations (physical versus name) in matching.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Maturation of luminance- and motion-defined form perception beyond adolescence: a combined ERP and fMRI study.

Abilities to discriminate forms defined by motion continue to develop throughout childhood. To investigate late development of the visual motion system, we measured brain activity with event-related EEG potentials (ERPs) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in groups of adolescents (15-17 years) and adults (20-30 years) during a visual form discrimination task--with forms being either defined by motion or luminance contrast. We further explored whether possible developmental changes varied with the degree of motion coherence reflecting maturation specific to global motion processing. Both the fMRI activation patterns and ERP topographies were very similar between adolescents and adults, suggesting that the basic visual networks for processing motion and form are established by the age of 15-17. The ERP response to luminance- and motion-defined forms was dominated by a posterior negativity (N1: 120-270 ms). The N1 of the motion contrast was delayed in adolescents, whereas the N1 of the static condition did not differ between groups. Since the motion-evoked N1 is thought to arise in the middle temporal area MT/V5, our results indicate that visual motion processing in MT continues to get faster, becoming still more efficient during late development. Neither the ERP nor the fMRI results revealed maturation effects specific to motion coherence. This indicates that the specific mechanisms to process global dot motion are already mature in adolescence. The present findings support the view that static perception matures earlier than dynamic perception, and that these visual systems have different developmental courses.

Adolescent↗