↓ Skip to main content

Contour Integration in Dynamic Scenes: Impaired Detection Performance in Extended Presentations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contour Integration in Dynamic Scenes: Impaired Detection Performance in Extended Presentations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01501
Pubmed ID
Authors

Axel Grzymisch, Cathleen Grimsen, Udo A. Ernst

Abstract

Since scenes in nature are highly dynamic, perception requires an on-going and robust integration of local information into global representations. In vision, contour integration (CI) is one of these tasks, and it is performed by our brain in a seemingly effortless manner. Following the rule of good continuation, oriented line segments are linked into contour percepts, thus supporting important visual computations such as the detection of object boundaries. This process has been studied almost exclusively using static stimuli, raising the question of whether the observed robustness and "pop-out" quality of CI carries over to dynamic scenes. We investigate contour detection in dynamic stimuli where targets appear at random times by Gabor elements aligning themselves to form contours. In briefly presented displays (230 ms), a situation comparable to classical paradigms in CI, performance is about 87%. Surprisingly, we find that detection performance decreases to 67% in extended presentations (about 1.9-3.8 s) for the same target stimuli. In order to observe the same reduction with briefly presented stimuli, presentation time has to be drastically decreased to intervals as short as 50 ms. Cueing a specific contour position or shape helps in partially compensating this deterioration, and only in extended presentations combining a location and a shape cue was more efficient than providing a single cue. Our findings challenge the notion of CI as a mainly stimulus-driven process leading to pop-out percepts, indicating that top-down processes play a much larger role in supporting fundamental integration processes in dynamic scenes than previously thought.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 50%
Neuroscience 2 17%
Linguistics 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,454
of 30,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,022
of 315,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#505
of 602 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 602 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.