A Bayesian Observer Replicates Convexity Context Effects in Figure–Ground Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peterson and Salvagio (2008) demonstrated convexity context effects in figure-ground perception. Subjects shown displays consisting of unfamiliar alternating convex and concave regions identified the convex regions as foreground objects progressively more frequently as the number of regions increased; this occurred only when the concave regions were homogeneously colored. The origins of these effects have been unclear. Here, we present a two-free-parameter Bayesian observer that replicates convexity context effects. The Bayesian observer incorporates two plausible expectations regarding three-dimensional scenes: (1) objects tend to be convex rather than concave, and (2) backgrounds tend (more than foreground objects) to be homogeneously colored. The Bayesian observer estimates the probability that a depicted scene is three-dimensional, and that the convex regions are figures. It responds stochastically by sampling from its posterior distributions. Like human observers, the Bayesian observer shows convexity context effects only for images with homogeneously colored concave regions. With optimal parameter settings, it performs similarly to the average human subject on the four display types tested. We propose that object convexity and background color homogeneity are environmental regularities exploited by human visual perception; vision achieves figure-ground perception by interpreting ambiguous images in light of these and other expected regularities in natural scenes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".