{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020713463751438434, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009205983889528193, 'mean_word_length': 5.083916083916084, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rapid Figure – Ground Responses to Stereograms Reveal an Advantage for a Convex Foreground

Convexity has long been recognised as a factor that affects figure – ground segmentation, even when pitted against other factors such as symmetry [Kanizsa and Gerbino, 1976 Art and Artefacts Ed.M Henle (New York: Springer) pp 25–32], It is accepted in the literature that the difference between concave and convex contours is important for the visual system, and that there is a prior expectation favouring convexities as figure. We used bipartite stimuli and a simple task in which observers had to report whether the foreground was on the left or the right. We report objective evidence that supports the idea that convexity affects figure – ground assignment, even though our stimuli were not pictorial in that depth order was specified unambiguously by binocular disparity.