shape color patient binding report

When attention is split between peripheral shapes with novel colors and a distracting foveal task, is it impaired?

How many blocks of experiments were used in the experiment 3?

What was the correct same/different response in experiment 1?

About this website

Abstract

Non-synesthetic people tend to systematically associate certain shapes with particular colors (i.e., circle–red, triangle–yellow, square–blue). In the present study, we investigated whether such color–shape associations influence illusory conjunctions.

Introduction

Kandinsky ( 1912, 1947) first proposed that colors and shapes are inherently associated (i.e., circle–blue, triangle–yellow, and square–red), and his color–shape correspondence theory has garnered much interest from and stoked debate among fellow artists and researchers.

Method

Eighteen Japanese undergraduates (nine males, M age = 20.2 years, SD = 1.8) from Waseda University participated. Sample size was determined using prior experiments investigating similar effects (Arend et al., 2013; Arend & Henik, 2017 ).

Results

The mean accuracy of the letter task was 93.75%. We excluded the trials in which the letter judgment was incorrect. The mean proportion of hits, ICs, and FEs for each participant with color–shape congruency as a factor (congruent color shape associations are circle–red, triangle–yellow, and square–blue) was calculated.

Discussion

We observed that IC occurred more frequently with incongruent colored-shape displays than congruent ones. This study is the first to show that CSAs affect putative visual processing for feature binding.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17F17008,17H00753) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and CREST (JPMJCR14E4) from Japan Science and Technology Agency to KW.

Author information

Department of Intermedia Art and Science, School of Fundamental Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1, Ohkubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 169-8555, Japan

When attention is split between peripheral shapes with novel colors and a distracting foveal task, is it impaired?

Our results indicate that when attention is split between peripheral shapes with novel colors and a distracting foveal task, color-shape acquisition is impaired; it becomes much more difficult to learn which colors go with which shapes when attention is split than when attention is fully deployed to the peripheral stimuli. In contrast, acquiring the shapes themselves is relatively unimpaired by splitting attention.

How many blocks of experiments were used in the experiment 3?

Except for Experiment 3, all Experiments ended after six blocks of trials. By the end of the six blocks, all 60 pictures (30 to be acquired and 30 foils) had been tested once each in the test phase. The testing order was different for each participant, so that data averaged across participants could be used to characterize any improvement in recognition over blocks, uncontaminated by idiosyncratic order effects. In Experiment 3, either the first three bocks were repeated to create a nine-block experiment, or all six blocks were repeated on a subsequent day to create a 12-block experiment.

What was the correct same/different response in experiment 1?

In Experiment 1, correct same/different responses on observing trials could be based on shape alone, or on color and shape . Had participants failed to notice the color, it would be hardly surprising that there was little acquisition of color-shape combinations, which would cast doubt on any interpretation involving binding. Therefore Experiment 2 was run as a replication of Experiment 1, except that the picture-matching instruction in observing trials was changed to emphasize the identity of the colors of the two pictures. Thus a blue frog and a blue pig were ‘different’ in Experiment 1 but ‘same’ in Experiment 2. In this way we forced the participants to notice the color.

When attention is split between peripheral shapes with novel colors and a distracting foveal task, is it impaired?

Our results indicate that when attention is split between peripheral shapes with novel colors and a distracting foveal task, color-shape acquisition is impaired; it becomes much more difficult to learn which colors go with which shapes when attention is split than when attention is fully deployed to the peripheral stimuli. In contrast, acquiring the shapes themselves is relatively unimpaired by splitting attention.

How many blocks of experiments were used in the experiment 3?

Except for Experiment 3, all Experiments ended after six blocks of trials. By the end of the six blocks, all 60 pictures (30 to be acquired and 30 foils) had been tested once each in the test phase. The testing order was different for each participant, so that data averaged across participants could be used to characterize any improvement in recognition over blocks, uncontaminated by idiosyncratic order effects. In Experiment 3, either the first three bocks were repeated to create a nine-block experiment, or all six blocks were repeated on a subsequent day to create a 12-block experiment.

What was the correct same/different response in experiment 1?

In Experiment 1, correct same/different responses on observing trials could be based on shape alone, or on color and shape . Had participants failed to notice the color, it would be hardly surprising that there was little acquisition of color-shape combinations, which would cast doubt on any interpretation involving binding. Therefore Experiment 2 was run as a replication of Experiment 1, except that the picture-matching instruction in observing trials was changed to emphasize the identity of the colors of the two pictures. Thus a blue frog and a blue pig were ‘different’ in Experiment 1 but ‘same’ in Experiment 2. In this way we forced the participants to notice the color.