We explored the tension between bottom–up and top–down contributions to object recognition in a collaboration between a visual artist and a cognitive psychologist. Initial pictorial renderings of objects and animals from various viewpoints were iteratively copied, and a series of drawings that changed from highly concrete images into highly abstract images was produced. In drawing identification in which sets were shown in reverse order, participants were more accurate, more confident, and quicker to correctly identify the evolving image when it was originally displayed from a canonical viewpoint with all salient features present. In drawing identification in which images were shown in random order, more abstract images could be resolved as a result of previously identifying a more concrete iteration of the same drawing. The results raise issues about the influence of viewpoint and feature on the preservation of pictorial images and about the role of labelling in the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. In addition, the study highlights a procedure in which visual stimuli can degrade without necessitating a substantial loss of complexity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacon-MacéNMaceM J MFabre-ThorpeMThorpeS, 2005“The time course of visual processing: Backward masking and natural scene categorization”Visual Research451459–1469
2.
BartlettF C, 1932Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
3.
BentinSMoscovitchM, 1988“The time course of repetition effects for words and unfamiliar faces”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117148–160
4.
BiedermanI, 1987“Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding”Psychological Review94115–147
5.
BiedermanICooperE E, 1991“Evidence for complete translational and reflectional invariance in visual object priming”Perception20585–593
6.
BiedermanICooperE E, 1992“Size invariance in visual object priming”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18121–133
BradyT FKonkleTAlvarezG AOlivaA, 2008“Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA10514325–14329
9.
BrandimonteM AHitchG JBishopD V M, 1992“Verbal recoding of visual stimuli impairs mental image transformations”Memory & Cognition20449–455
10.
ChikhmanVShelepinYForemanNMerkuljevAProninS, 2006“Incomplete figure perception and invisible masking”Perception351441–1457
11.
CohenD JBennettS, 1997“Why can't most people draw what they see?”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23609–621
12.
CohenDEarls-JonesH, 2008“How shape constancy relates to drawing accuracy”Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts28–19
13.
CohenJMacWhinneyBFlattMProvostJ, 1993“PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers”Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers25257–271
14.
CoxM, 2005The Pictorial World of the Child (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
15.
DysonB J, 2009“Aesthetic appreciation of pictures”, in Encyclopedia of Perception Ed. GoldsteinB (London: Sage)
16.
EdwardsB, 1999The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: A Course in Enhancing Creativity and Artistic Confidence (New York: Tarcher/Penguin)
17.
GollinE S, 1960“Developmental studies of visual recognition of incomplete objects”Perceptual and Motor Skills11289–298
18.
GombrichE H, 1977Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation5th edition (Oxford: Phaidon Press)
19.
GregoryR L, 1997Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing5th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
20.
HanleyJ RBakopoulouE, 2003“Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and phonological similarity: A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review10435–444
21.
HaukOPattersonKWoollamsACooper-PyeEPulvermullerFRogersT T, 2007“How the camel lost its hump: The impact of object typicality on event-related potential signals in object decision”Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience191338–1353
22.
IshaiAFairhallS LPepperellR, 2007“Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art”Brain Research Bulletin73319–324
23.
KozbeltASeeleyW P, 2007“Integrating art historical, psychological, and neuroscientific explanations of artists' advantages in drawing and perception”Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts180–90
24.
KozbeltASeidelAEl BassiounyAMarkYOwenD R, in press “Visual selection contributes to artists' advantages in representational drawing”Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
25.
LeeM, 1989“When is an object not an object? The effect of ‘meaning’ upon the copying of line drawings”British Journal of Psychology8015–37
26.
Lloyd-JonesT JBrownCClarkeS, 2006“Verbal overshadowing of perceptual discrimination”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13269–274
27.
LocherP J, 2003“An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception”Acta Psychologica114147–164
28.
MeissnerC AMemonA, 2002“Verbal overshadowing: A special issue exploring theoretical and applied issues”Applied Cognitive Psychology16869–872
29.
MesoudiAWhitenALalandK N, 2006“Towards a unified science of cultural evolution”Behavioral and Brain Sciences29329–347
30.
MitchellPRoparDAckroydKRajendranG, 2005“How perception impacts on drawings”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance31996–1003
31.
MooreD AHealyP J, 2008“The trouble with overconfidence”Psychological Review115502–517
32.
MurrayF SSzymczykJ M, 1978“Effects of distinctive features on recognition of incomplete pictures”Developmental Psychology14356–362
33.
PalmerSRoschEChaseP, 1981“Canonical perspective and the perception of objects”, in Attention and Performance IX Eds LongJBaddeleyA (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 135–151
34.
PearsonDHannaEMartinezK, 1990“Computer generated cartoons”, in Images and Understanding Eds BarlowHBlakemoreCWeston-SmithM (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 46–60
35.
PeissigJ JTarrM A, 2007“Visual object recognition: Do we know more now than we did 20 years ago?”Annual Review of Psychology5875–96
36.
RossionBPourtoisG, 2004“Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic level object recognition”Perception33217–236
37.
RousseletG AHuskJ SBennettP JSekulerA B, 2008“Time course and robustness of ERP object and face differences”Journal of Vision81–18
38.
RuskinJ, 1857/1971The Elements of Drawing (Mineola, NY: Dover)
39.
SchoolerJ WEngstler-SchoolerT Y, 1990“Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid”Cognitive Psychology2236–71
40.
SnodgrassJ GFeenanK, 1990“Priming effects in picture fragment completion: Support for the perceptual closure hypothesis”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119276–298
41.
SnodgrassJ GVanderwartM, 1980“A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory6174–215
42.
St JacquesP LRubinD CLaBarKCabezaR, 2008“The short and long of it: Neural correlates of temporal order-memory for autobiographical events”Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience201327–1341
43.
VartanianOGoelV, 2004“Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings”NeuroReport15893–897
44.
WalkerPBlakeHBremnerJ G, 2008“Object naming induces viewpoint-independence in longer-term visual remembering: Evidence from a simple object drawing task”European Journal of Cognitive Psychology20632–648
