This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2015) |
The Rubin vase (sometimes known as Rubin's vase, the Rubin face or the figure–ground vase) is a famous example of ambiguous or bi-stable (i.e., reversing) two-dimensional forms developed around 1915 by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin.
The depicted version of Rubin's vase can be seen as the black profiles of two people looking towards each other or as a white vase, but not both.
Another example of a bistable figure Rubin included in his Danish-language, two-volume book was the Maltese cross.
Rubin presented in his doctoral thesis (1915) a detailed description of the visual figure-ground relationship, an outgrowth of the visual perception and memory work in the laboratory of his mentor, Georg Elias Müller. One element of Rubin's research may be summarized in the fundamental principle, "When two fields have a common border, and one is seen as figure and the other as ground, the immediate perceptual experience is characterized by a shaping effect which emerges from the common border of the fields and which operates only on one field or operates more strongly on one than on the other".
The effect
The visual effect generally presents the viewer with two shape interpretations, each of which is consistent with the retinal image, but only one of which can be maintained at a given moment. This is because the bounding contour will be seen as belonging to the figure shape, which appears interposed against a formless background. If the latter region is interpreted instead as the figure, then the same bounding contour will be seen as belonging to it.
Explanation
These types of stimuli are both interesting and useful because they provide an excellent and intuitive demonstration of the figure–ground distinction the brain makes during visual perception. Rubin's figure–ground distinction, since it involved higher-level cognitive pattern matching, in which the overall picture determines its mental interpretation, rather than the net effect of the individual pieces, influenced the Gestalt psychologists, who discovered many similar percepts themselves.
Normally the brain classifies images by which object surrounds which – establishing depth and relationships. If one object surrounds another object, the surrounded object is seen as figure, and the presumably further away (and hence background) object is the ground, and reversed. This makes sense, since if a piece of fruit is lying on the ground, one would want to pay attention to the "figure" and not the "ground". However, when the contours are not so unequal, ambiguity starts to creep into the previously simple inequality, and the brain must begin "shaping" what it sees; it can be shown that this shaping overrides and is at a higher level than feature recognition processes that pull together the face and the vase images – one can think of the lower levels putting together distinct regions of the picture (each region of which makes sense in isolation), but when the brain tries to make sense of it as a whole, contradictions ensue, and patterns must be discarded.
Construction
The distinction is exploited by devising an ambiguous picture, whose contours match seamlessly the contours of another picture (sometimes the same picture; a practice M. C. Escher used on occasion). The picture should be "flat" and have little (if any) texture to it. The stereotypical example has a vase in the center, and a face matching its contour (since it is symmetrical, there is a matching face on the other side).
See also
- Pareidolia
References
- Rubin, E. (1915). Synsoplevede figurer: Studier i psykologisk analyse [Perceived figures: Studies in psychological analysis]. Gyldendal, Nordisk forlag.
- "Looking back: Figure and ground at 100 | The Psychologist".
- "Figure/Ground". Archived from the original on 2002-12-24.
Further reading
- A Psychology of Picture Perception, John M. Kennedy. 1974, Jossey-Bass Publishers, ISBN 0-87589-204-3
- The art and science of visual illusions, Nicholas Wade. 1982 Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. ISBN 0-7100-0868-6
- Visual Space Perception, William H. Ittelson. 1969, Springer Publishing Company, LOCCCN 60-15818
- "Vase or face? A neural correlates of shape-selective grouping processes in the human brain." Uri Hasson, Talma Hendler, Dafna Ben Bashat, Rafael Malach.
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol 13(6), Aug 2001. pp. 744–753. ISSN 0898-929X (Print)
External links
- Rubin's People Inside the Wall People trapped inside a Wall
- Illusionworks.com article Archived 2013-01-20 at the Wayback Machine
- Rubin has invented nothing The Rubin's vase before Rubin (fr)
This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Rubin vase news newspapers books scholar JSTOR November 2015 Learn how and when to remove this message The Rubin vase sometimes known as Rubin s vase the Rubin face or the figure ground vase is a famous example of ambiguous or bi stable i e reversing two dimensional forms developed around 1915 by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin A version of Rubin s vase The depicted version of Rubin s vase can be seen as the black profiles of two people looking towards each other or as a white vase but not both Another example of a bistable figure Rubin included in his Danish language two volume book was the Maltese cross A 3D model of a Rubin vase Rubin presented in his doctoral thesis 1915 a detailed description of the visual figure ground relationship an outgrowth of the visual perception and memory work in the laboratory of his mentor Georg Elias Muller One element of Rubin s research may be summarized in the fundamental principle When two fields have a common border and one is seen as figure and the other as ground the immediate perceptual experience is characterized by a shaping effect which emerges from the common border of the fields and which operates only on one field or operates more strongly on one than on the other The effectThe visual effect generally presents the viewer with two shape interpretations each of which is consistent with the retinal image but only one of which can be maintained at a given moment This is because the bounding contour will be seen as belonging to the figure shape which appears interposed against a formless background If the latter region is interpreted instead as the figure then the same bounding contour will be seen as belonging to it Explanation These types of stimuli are both interesting and useful because they provide an excellent and intuitive demonstration of the figure ground distinction the brain makes during visual perception Rubin s figure ground distinction since it involved higher level cognitive pattern matching in which the overall picture determines its mental interpretation rather than the net effect of the individual pieces influenced the Gestalt psychologists who discovered many similar percepts themselves Normally the brain classifies images by which object surrounds which establishing depth and relationships If one object surrounds another object the surrounded object is seen as figure and the presumably further away and hence background object is the ground and reversed This makes sense since if a piece of fruit is lying on the ground one would want to pay attention to the figure and not the ground However when the contours are not so unequal ambiguity starts to creep into the previously simple inequality and the brain must begin shaping what it sees it can be shown that this shaping overrides and is at a higher level than feature recognition processes that pull together the face and the vase images one can think of the lower levels putting together distinct regions of the picture each region of which makes sense in isolation but when the brain tries to make sense of it as a whole contradictions ensue and patterns must be discarded Construction Water sculpture featuring a reverse profile of 19th c abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in the black granite area The distinction is exploited by devising an ambiguous picture whose contours match seamlessly the contours of another picture sometimes the same picture a practice M C Escher used on occasion The picture should be flat and have little if any texture to it The stereotypical example has a vase in the center and a face matching its contour since it is symmetrical there is a matching face on the other side See alsoPareidoliaReferencesRubin E 1915 Synsoplevede figurer Studier i psykologisk analyse Perceived figures Studies in psychological analysis Gyldendal Nordisk forlag Looking back Figure and ground at 100 The Psychologist Figure Ground Archived from the original on 2002 12 24 Further readingA Psychology of Picture Perception John M Kennedy 1974 Jossey Bass Publishers ISBN 0 87589 204 3 The art and science of visual illusions Nicholas Wade 1982 Routledge amp Kegan Paul Ltd ISBN 0 7100 0868 6 Visual Space Perception William H Ittelson 1969 Springer Publishing Company LOCCCN 60 15818 Vase or face A neural correlates of shape selective grouping processes in the human brain Uri Hasson Talma Hendler Dafna Ben Bashat Rafael Malach Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Vol 13 6 Aug 2001 pp 744 753 ISSN 0898 929X Print External linksWikimedia Commons has media related to Rubin s vase Rubin s People Inside the Wall People trapped inside a Wall Illusionworks com article Archived 2013 01 20 at the Wayback Machine Rubin has invented nothing The Rubin s vase before Rubin fr
