- Page 1 and 2: Time Course of Perceptual Grouping
- Page 3: Experiment 1 76 Method 76 Results a
- Page 7 and 8: Time Course of Perceptual Grouping
- Page 9 and 10: Time Course of Perceptual Grouping
- Page 11 and 12: will look like and how it will comm
- Page 13 and 14: visibility of important interface e
- Page 15 and 16: displays are reported. Global and l
- Page 17 and 18: Electrical activity generated by th
- Page 19 and 20: would not be. It would be easier to
- Page 21 and 22: could be grouped by the principles
- Page 23 and 24: Figure 4. Gestalt principles of gro
- Page 25 and 26: One of the leaders in grouping and
- Page 27 and 28: defined by similar numbers. For exa
- Page 29 and 30: and Saasrinen (2000) observed that
- Page 31 and 32: proximity (Bailey, 1989; Bonney & W
- Page 33 and 34: find the target ‘Picture’ in th
- Page 35 and 36: Humans integrate many types of info
- Page 37 and 38: measures. As a result, the pilot wo
- Page 39 and 40: Figure 10. Pop-up advertisement wit
- Page 41 and 42: soldiers see in these speeded condi
- Page 43 and 44: 2001), grouping by proximity and al
- Page 45 and 46: local letters, as illustrated by Fi
- Page 47 and 48: frequency channels at specific rang
- Page 49 and 50: Recent support for the Flexible Usa
- Page 51 and 52: occluded shape as being incomplete
- Page 53 and 54: search for the target in the experi
- Page 55 and 56:
Gestalt principle of good continuat
- Page 57 and 58:
columns of circles on the opposing
- Page 59 and 60:
short stimulus durations can be use
- Page 61 and 62:
Figure 15. Results for ambiguous pr
- Page 63 and 64:
As shown in Figure 16B, for the lig
- Page 65 and 66:
In review these findings, it become
- Page 67 and 68:
in user interface display layouts.
- Page 69 and 70:
were asked to make decisions about
- Page 71 and 72:
columns of pushbuttons on either si
- Page 73 and 74:
principles that are depicted more g
- Page 75 and 76:
no longer perceived. These cases wi
- Page 77 and 78:
influence what ‘goes together’
- Page 79 and 80:
participants, randomly with replace
- Page 81 and 82:
Figure 23. Targets used in reported
- Page 83 and 84:
participants that were more than th
- Page 85 and 86:
that was presented in the pilot exp
- Page 87 and 88:
from three participants because one
- Page 89 and 90:
see, each of the four distributions
- Page 91 and 92:
The distribution of data from each
- Page 93 and 94:
Figure 28. Targets for Experiment 2
- Page 95 and 96:
Results and discussion Sixteen fema
- Page 97 and 98:
global grouping was significantly f
- Page 99 and 100:
Figure 32A depicts a box plot for g
- Page 101 and 102:
means, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Te
- Page 103 and 104:
to group by the alternative scale.
- Page 105 and 106:
Table 4. Characteristics of RT dist
- Page 107 and 108:
General Discussion Research that ha
- Page 109 and 110:
Experiments 2A and 2B were designed
- Page 111 and 112:
the size scale within an existing i
- Page 113 and 114:
“Hotmail” has been reported to
- Page 115 and 116:
They are interesting within the con
- Page 117 and 118:
forms of similarity could also be t
- Page 119 and 120:
the context of vision science resea
- Page 121 and 122:
Bennett, K. B., Nagy, A. L., and Fl
- Page 123 and 124:
De Valois, R. L. & De Valois, K. K.
- Page 125 and 126:
Johnston, W.A., Schwarting, I.S. &
- Page 127 and 128:
Nass, C., Isbister, K., & Lee, E.J.
- Page 129 and 130:
Palmer, S. E. & Rock, I. (1994). Re
- Page 131 and 132:
Sanocki, T.(2001). Interaction of s
- Page 133 and 134:
Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation
- Page 135:
About the Author Melissa F. Schulz