Talk:Figure–ground (perception)

Untitled
Should I add information to the article about Gestalt? He created the figure/ground theory, so I think we should say something about him. I will do the research, just tell me yes or no. http://www.turnyourhead.com/psych.php?s=ff1ee65b335522ad3c7216b6bbfd58f2 --AdamTheWebMan 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gestalt Psychology deserves to be mentioned because it emphasizes this aspect of perception.Lestrade (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

I think it would be a good idea to include information about the Gestalt Laws of Organization which are responsible for figure ground. Jgrady328 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree this information should be included. This article also needs more citations and clarification in general. 108.91.118.244 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Maple leaf or two faces arguing?"
Maple leaf. Every time, maple leaf. Try as I might, I can't see two faces in the Canadian flag as illustrated in the article with the caption above.

This is a subjective perceptual thing, I realise. It's quite possible that this is because I've never been shown the shape as two faces: it's possible that had no-one ever pointed out the faces/vase shift to me I would have gone through life only ever seeing faces or a vase in that original image. If we're going to use the Canadian flag as an example of this, might it be a good idea to include another version with the faces highlighted? I can't be the only one who just can't see it - and if it's to be made such a prominent example then it needs to be made widely apparent. Either that, or I'd suggest another example be used. - Coldwind487 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The actual ground
The picture where the figure is a wooden floor is funny, I guess, but I'm confused about what the point is. I assume it matches up with the bullet points, but they're not exactly clear either.

143.159.4.35 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)