According to Nava Rubin (2001), ground shapes are "accidental" outcomes of how figures are arranged. As a rule, then, it is a waste of mental resources to pay attention to the shapes of figures.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Nava Rubin's theory suggests that the ground (or background) shapes are often seen as "accidental" or less meaningful compared to the figure (or focus) shapes in visual perception. However, this does not imply it's a waste of mental resources to pay attention to figure shapes. Rubin's work on figure-ground organization in visual perception emphasizes the importance of both figures and grounds in understanding visual scenes, not the dismissal of attention to shapes of figures.

According to Nava Rubin (2001), Ground Shapes Are "Accidental" Outcomes