<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
From my personal experience, I do not think darker surfaces are regarded preferably as the object, and light surfaces as the background.  </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
I have been pondering on this question for so long that I decided to post <em>an</em> answer. Perhaps it will draw attention from others who can give a more definitive answer.</p>

<p>This answer was inspired by <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15868/is-the-rubin-vase-illusion-an-example-of-inattentional-blindness">this question</a> on the <strong><a href="http://psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de/i1/kaw/diverses%20Material/www.illusionworks.com/html/figure_ground.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rubin Vase Illusion</a></strong>. It is an <strong><a href="http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Figure-ground_perception" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ambiguous figure/ground illusion</a></strong> which is thought to depend on the visual system analyzing scenes in terms of object (figure) and background (ground). You can see a vase when you regard the faces as background and <em>vice versa</em>. In the Fig. 1 below I have posted two versions of this illusion where the black and white portions are reversed. Personally, and hence anecdotally, I do not perceive a clear difference in the perception of the vase versus faces between both figures. Hence, based on this anecdotal evidence I tend to believe that the definition of figure and ground is independent on color (shades of gray in this case). I couldn't find references for the flip-flop rates or vase-versus-face perception time on the two stimuli, unfortunately. In all, what a great question!</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/d8iNA.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/d8iNA.png" alt="enter image description here"></a> <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/IOtK0.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/IOtK0.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>
<sup>Fig. 1. Contrast-inverted Rubin Illusions. sources: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855546/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Winkler <em>et al</em>. (2006)</a> (left panel) and <a href="http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/gestalt_psychology.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Russel &amp; Dowey (2014)</a> (right panel)</sup> </p>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/gestalt_psychology.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Russel &amp; Dowey, <em>Psychology: An Introduction</em> (2014)</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855546/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Winkler <em>et al</em>. <em>Eur J Neurosci</em> (2006); <strong>24</strong>(2): 625–34</a></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2016-09-07T21:45:19.763Z
2018-07-06T21:15:22.767Z
2018-07-06T21:15:22.767Z
AliceD
<p>Given that surfaces which capture attention are more likely to be perceived as figures (or figures attract attention more than ground does?), is there a bias associated with the luminance of a surface? For example, we often see dark figures (<em>e.g.</em>, text) on white paper.</p>

<p>Do you know of any literature to suggest a bias where darker surfaces are shown to attract attention more effectively than lighter surfaces (or <em>vice versa</em>)?</p>

<p>Or, alternatively, is there data available on a possible bias where figure-ground segmentation is more likely to occur for a dark figure on a white ground (or <em>vice versa</em>)?</p>

<cognitive-psychology><perception><vision>
Is there any evidence for a bias towards perceiving darker surfaces as 'figure' rather than 'ground'?
Steph
# Is there any evidence for a bias towards perceiving darker surfaces as 'figure' rather than 'ground'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-11)

Given that surfaces which capture attention are more likely to be perceived as figures (or figures attract attention more than ground does?), is there a bias associated with the luminance of a surface? For example, we often see dark figures (*e.g.*, text) on white paper.

Do you know of any literature to suggest a bias where darker surfaces are shown to attract attention more effectively than lighter surfaces (or *vice versa*)?

Or, alternatively, is there data available on a possible bias where figure-ground segmentation is more likely to occur for a dark figure on a white ground (or *vice versa*)?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, perception, vision


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-09-07. Score: 1

**Short answer**  
From my personal experience, I do not think darker surfaces are regarded preferably as the object, and light surfaces as the background.

**Background**  
I have been pondering on this question for so long that I decided to post *an* answer. Perhaps it will draw attention from others who can give a more definitive answer.

This answer was inspired by [this question](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15868/is-the-rubin-vase-illusion-an-example-of-inattentional-blindness) on the **[Rubin Vase Illusion](http://psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de/i1/kaw/diverses%20Material/www.illusionworks.com/html/figure_ground.html)**. It is an **[ambiguous figure/ground illusion](http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Figure-ground_perception)** which is thought to depend on the visual system analyzing scenes in terms of object (figure) and background (ground). You can see a vase when you regard the faces as background and *vice versa*. In the Fig. 1 below I have posted two versions of this illusion where the black and white portions are reversed. Personally, and hence anecdotally, I do not perceive a clear difference in the perception of the vase versus faces between both figures. Hence, based on this anecdotal evidence I tend to believe that the definition of figure and ground is independent on color (shades of gray in this case). I couldn't find references for the flip-flop rates or vase-versus-face perception time on the two stimuli, unfortunately. In all, what a great question!

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/d8iNA.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/d8iNA.png) [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/IOtK0.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/IOtK0.png)  
Fig. 1. Contrast-inverted Rubin Illusions. sources: [Winkler *et al*. (2006)](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855546/) (left panel) and [Russel & Dowey (2014)](http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/gestalt_psychology.html) (right panel)

**References**  
**-** [Russel & Dowey, *Psychology: An Introduction* (2014)](http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/gestalt_psychology.html)  
**-** [Winkler *et al*. *Eur J Neurosci* (2006); **24**(2): 625–34](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855546/)


---

