The Limiting Case of Amodal Completion: The Phenomenal Salience and the Role of Contrast Polarity

Gestalts at threshold could reveal Gestalts as predictions

We review and revisit the predictive processing inspired “Gestalts as predictions” hypothesis. The study of Gestalt phenomena at and below threshold can help clarify the role of higher-order object selective areas and feedback connections in mid-level vision. In two psychophysical experiments assessing manipulations of contrast and configurality we showed that: (1) Gestalt phenomena are robust against saliency manipulations across the psychometric function even below threshold (with the accuracy gains and higher saliency associated with Gestalts being present even around chance performance); and (2) peak differences between Gestalt and control conditions happened around the time where responses to Gestalts are starting to saturate (mimicking the differential contrast response profile of striate vs. extra-striate visual neurons). In addition, Gestalts are associated with steeper psychometric functions in all experiments. We propose that these results reflect the differential engagement of object-selective areas in Gestalt phenomena and of information- or percept-based processing, as opposed to energy- or stimulus-based processing, more generally. In addition, the presence of nonlinearities in the psychometric functions suggest differential top-down modulation of the early visual cortex. We treat this as a proof of principle study, illustrating that classic psychophysics can help assess possible involvement of hierarchical predictive processing in Gestalt phenomena.

On the Role of Contrast Polarity: In Response to van der Helm’s Comments

In this work, we discussed and counter-commented van der Helm’s comments on our previous paper (Pinna and Conti, Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149), where we demonstrated unique and relevant visual properties imparted by contrast polarity in eliciting amodal completion. The main question we addressed was: “What is the role of shape formation and perceptual organization in inducing amodal completion?” To answer this question, novel stimuli were studied through Gestalt experimental phenomenology. The results demonstrated the domination of the contrast polarity against good continuation, T-junctions, and regularity. Moreover, the limiting conditions explored revealed a new kind of junction next to the T- and Y-junctions, respectively responsible for amodal completion and tessellation. We called them I-junctions. The results were theoretically discussed in relation to the previous approaches and in the light of the phenomenal salience imparted by contrast polarity. In counter-commenting van der Helm’s comments we went into detail of his critiques and rejected all of them point-by-point. We proceeded by summarizing hypotheses and discussion of the previous work, then commenting on each critique through old and new phenomena and clarifying the meaning of our previous conclusions.

Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)

Pinna and Conti (Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149, doi:10.3390/brainsci9060149) presented phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. These phenomena are indeed illustrative thereof, but here, the focus is on their claims (1) that neither simplicity nor likelihood approaches can account for these phenomena; and (2) that simplicity and likelihood are equivalent. I argue that their first claim is based on incorrect assumptions, whereas their second claim is simply untrue.