臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

整體式處理 (holistic processing) 是指在處理物體時，將物體本身視為一個不可分割的刺激來直接處理；而分析式的處理 (piecemeal processing) 則指吾人在處理物體時，會將物體視為是釵h分割部件的組合，並對各個部件做清楚的表徵後再加以處理。 本研究的目的即試圖以記錄並分析眼動移動及凝視的位置，探討參與者在判斷不同可能性的圖形時，其注意力分佈及視覺的處理歷程。在四個不同的實驗當中，我們要求實驗參與者對於呈現在螢幕上的圖形快速的判斷其可能性。實驗一中，我們利用線條繪製的立體空心矩形做為刺激，實驗參與者能自由的移動眼睛去觀看呈現在螢幕上的刺激，並盡快的按鍵反應。 實驗二則改以3D的立體空心矩形做為刺激以增加影像的局部線索，如亮度及陰影等，刺激呈現的方式與實驗一完全相同；而實驗三仍以3D立體空心矩形做為刺激，並增加提示位置的不同，以產生三種與觀察點不一致角 (corner of inconsistent viewpoint) 不同的距離。實驗四則將3D立體空心矩形的長度延展並操弄其大小，且仍使用三種不同的提示位置，以觀察刺激的大小、長度及提示位置對於圖形可能性判斷行為的影響。在實驗一與實驗二中我們發現：(1)對於不可能圖形判斷的反應時間及錯誤率明顯大於對可能圖形的判斷；(2)當刺激為線條立體圖形時，對於可能或不可能圖形皆採用循序漸近式的逐一觀看策略 (piecemeal strategy)；但當刺激為3D立體圖形時，對於不可能圖形傾向採用逐一觀看的策略，而在可能圖形上則傾向採用整體性的策略 (global strategy)。 實驗三的結果發現，當提示位置位於刺激的正中央時，其反應時間明顯的快於提示位置離不一致角遠及近情況，且眼動分析的結果也可以發現，當提示位置離不一致角遠及近時，觀看者較傾向使用循序漸近的逐一觀看策略 (piecemeal strategy)。 實驗四的結果則發現當呈現的刺激較大時，觀看者的反應時間會隨著提示位置與不一致角的遠近而有所改變。 這些實驗的結果可用來說明，吾人可以藉由眼球運動的分析，精確的掌握注意力的運作以及視覺處理的策略。

緒論 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
整體處理與分析式處理的理論爭議 --------------------------------------------- 1
完形學派與生態學派 --------------------------------------------------------- 1
建構主義學派 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
刺激大小與物體辨識 --------------------------------------------------------------- 6
不可能圖形的辨識歷程 ------------------------------------------------------------ 10
眼球運動與注意力 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
主動視覺與注意力 ------------------------------------------------------------ 13
研究目的 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
實驗一 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
研究方法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
結果 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
小結 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27
實驗二 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
研究方法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 28
結果 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 30
小結 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 36
實驗三 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
研究方法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 37
結果 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 39
小結 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 47
實驗四 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
研究方法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 48
結果 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50
小結 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 60
綜合討論 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 61
整體處理與分析式處理：注意力範圍大小的觀點 --------------------------- 64
參考文獻 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 66
附錄 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 72

Alvarez G. A., & Scholl B. J. (2005). How does attention select and track spatially extended objects? New effects of attentional concentration and amplification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 461-476.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
Biederman, I. (1995). Visual object recognition. In S. M. Kosslyn, & D. N. Osherson (Eds). Visual cognition: An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). (pp.121-165). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Boselie F., & Leeuwenberg E. (1986). A test of the minimum principle requires a perceptual coding system. Perception, 15, 331-354
Cowie, R. I. D. (1988). Impossible objects and the things we do first in vision. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 321-338.
Donnelly, N., Found, A., & Müller, H. J. (1999). Searching for impossible objects: Processing form and attributes in early vision. Perception & Psychophysics, 6(14), 675-690.
Eysenck, M. W., Keane M. T. (1990). Cognitive psychology: a student's handbook. Hove, UK :L. Erlbaum Associates.
Findlay, J. M., Brown, V., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2001). Saccade target selection in visual search: The effect of information from the previous fixation. Vision Research, 41, 87-95.
Findlay, J. M., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003). Active vision: The psychology of looking and seeing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gersch, T. M., Kowler, E., & Dosher, B. (2004). Dynamis allocation of visual attention during the execution of sequences of saccades. Vision Research, 44, 1469-1483.
Hayhoe, M. (2000). Vision using routines: A functional account of vision. Visual Cognition, 7, 43-64.
Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 188-194.
Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498-504.
Hochberg, J. (1981). Levels of perceptual organization. In M. Kubovy, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organization (pp. 255-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hochberg, J. (1982). How big is a stimulus? In J. Beck (Ed.), Organization and representation in perception (pp.191-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hochberg, J., & Peterson, M. A. (1987). Piecemeal Organization and Cognitive Components in Object Perception: Perceptually Coupled Responses to Moving Objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(4), 370-380.
Hochberg, J., and Peterson, M. A. (1989). Pictures in the mind's eye: Images in our perception of world and art. In M. Schuster and B. Woschek (Eds.), Nonverbale Kommunication durch Bilder. (pp. 33 – 51) Stuttgart: Verlag fur Angewandte Psychologie.
Hochberg J. (1994) Perceptual theory and visual cognition. In Cognitive approaches to human perception. Ed. Ballesteros S. Laurence Erlbaum Associates. 269-289.
Hochberg, J. (2003). Acts of perceptual inquiry: problems for any stimulus-based simplicity theory. Acta Psychologica, 114, 215-228.
Hoffman, J. E. (1998). Visual attention and eye movements. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 119-153). East Sussex, UK: Psychological Press.
Huffman, D. A. (1971). Impossible Objects as nonsense sentences. Machine Intelligence, 6, 295-323.
Land, M. F., & Hayhoe, M. (2001). In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities? Vision Research, 41, 3559-3565.
Land, M. F., Mennie, N., & Rusted, J. (1999). The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception, 28, 1311-1328.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Palmer, S. E. (1992). Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 436-447.
Palmer, S. E., & Rock, I. (1994a). On the nature and order of organizational processing: A reply to Peterson. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 515-519.
Palmer, S. E., & Levitin, D. (1998). Synchrony: A new principle of perceptual organization. Paper presented in 38th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November, Philadelphia, PA.
Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
Penrose, L., & Penrose, R. (1958). Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 31-33.
Peterson, M. A., and Hochberg, J. (1983). Opposed-set measurement procedure: A quantitative analysis of the role of local cues and intention in form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 183-193.
Peterson, M. A., and Hochberg, J. (1989). Necessary considerations for a theory of form perception: A theoretical and empirical reply to Boselie and Leeuwenberg, Perception, 18, 105-119.
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1991). Directing spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 170-182.
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1993). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional display. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 383-429.
Peterson, M. A. (1999). Organization, Segregation and Object Recognition. Intellectica, 28, 37 - 51.
Peterson, M. A., & Rhodes, Gillian (2003). Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pomerantz, J. R. (In Press). Piecemeal Perception and Hochberg’s Window: Grouping of Stimulus Elements over Distances.
Shyi, G. C.-W., & Peterson, M. A. (1992). Perceptual organization in a brief glance: The effects of figure size, figure location, and the attentional focus. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 34, 57-74.
Shigemura J., Yoshino A., Kobayashi Y., Takahashi Y. and Nomura S. (2004) Spatiotemporal differences between cognitive processes of spatially possible and impossible objects: a high-density electrical mapping study. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 301-305
Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and Wholes in face recognition. The quarterly Journal of Experimantal Psychology, 46A(2), 225-245.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
Ullman, S. & Sali, E.(2000) Object Classification Using a Fragment-Based Representatio. In: Seong-Whan Lee, Heinrich H. Bulthoff, Tomaso Poggio (eds.): Biologically Motivated Computer Vision, First IEEE International Workshop, BMVC 2000, Seoul, Korea, May 15-17, Proc. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1811 Springer, 73-87.