Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing

Complexity is conventionally defined as the level of detail or intricacy contained within a picture. The study of complexity has received relatively little attention—in part, because of the absence of an acceptable metric. Traditionally, normative ratings of complexity have been based on human judgments. However, this study demonstrates that published norms for visual complexity are biased. Familiarity and learning influence the subjective complexity scores for nonsense shapes, with a significant training × familiarity interaction [F(1,52) = 17.53, p < .05]. Several image-processing techniques were explored as alternative measures of picture and image complexity. A perimeter detection measure correlates strongly with human judgments of the complexity of line drawings of real-world objects and nonsense shapes and captures some of the processes important in judgments of subjective complexity, while removing the bias due to familiarity effects.

[1]  N Graham,et al.  Lightness differences and the perceived segregation of regions and populations , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  J. Beck,et al.  Contrast and spatial variables in texture segregation: Testing a simple spatial-frequency channels model , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Patrick Bonin,et al.  A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[4]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  D. Donderi.  Visual complexity: a review. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  B. C. Wright,et al.  Adults' versus children's performance on the Stroop task: interference and facilitation. , 2003, British journal of psychology.

[7]  M. Vitevitch,et al.  Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Don C Donderi,et al.  An Information Theory Analysis of Visual Complexity and Dissimilarity , 2006, Perception.

[9]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  C. W. Parkin,et al.  The Magnetism of the Moon , 1971 .

[11]  J. Hochberg,et al.  A quantitative approach to figural "goodness". , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  Reaction time as a measure of suprathreshold grating detection , 1978, Vision Research.

[14]  T. Perneger.  What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments , 1998, BMJ.

[15]  J R Lishman,et al.  Evidence for the View That Temporospatial Integration in Vision is Temporally Anisotropic , 1997, Perception.

[16]  W. R. Garner.  Good patterns have few alternatives. , 1970, American scientist.

[17]  J. Fodor,et al.  How direct is visual perception?: Some reflections on Gibson's “ecological approach” , 1981, Cognition.

[18]  Michael W. Marcellin,et al.  JPEG2000 - image compression fundamentals, standards and practice , 2002, The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science.

[19]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment , 2000 .

[20]  Keren B. Shatzman,et al.  Prosodic Knowledge Affects the Recognition of Newly Acquired Words , 2006, Psychological science.

[21]  Kenneth John Small,et al.  The Icon Book: Visual Symbols for Computer Systems and Documentation , 1994 .

[22]  B. Rossion,et al.  Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's Object Pictorial Set: The Role of Surface Detail in Basic-Level Object Recognition , 2004, Perception.

[23]  Changes in visual recall memory following discrimination learning. , 1973, Canadian journal of psychology.

[24]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[25]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[26]  Lorella Lotto,et al.  Naming times and standardized norms for the italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[27]  Caesar Saloma,et al.  Things I have learned so far , 2008 .

[28]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[29]  F. Attneave.  Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[30]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Noncommand user interfaces , 1993, CACM.

[31]  S F Chipman,et al.  Complexity and structure in visual patterns. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE ON VISUAL DISCRIMINATION , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[33]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[34]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[35]  D. C. Donderi,et al.  A single marine overlay display is more efficient than separate chart and radar displays , 2003 .

[36]  A. Vassilev,et al.  Perception time and spatial frequency , 1976, Vision Research.

[37]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Development and Validation of Icons Varying in their Abstractness , 1994, Interact. Comput..

[38]  R. Proctor,et al.  Index of norms and ratings published in the Psychonomic Society journals , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[39]  M. Vitkovitch,et al.  Sources of Disagreement in Object Naming , 1995 .

[40]  R Hoeger.  Speed of Processing and Stimulus Complexity in Low-Frequency and High-Frequency Channels , 1997, Perception.

[41]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  ON THE USE AND INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN TEST CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF STATISTICAL INFERENCE PART I , 1928 .

[42]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Timed picture naming in seven languages , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[44]  J. Pind,et al.  Icelandic norms for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) pictures: name and image agreement, familiarity, and age of acquisition. , 2000, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[45]  F. Attneave.  Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. , 1961 .

[46]  Christopher Barry,et al.  Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart Pictures: Effects of Age of Acquisition, Frequency, and Name Agreement , 1997 .

[47]  J HOCHBERG,et al.  The psychophysics of form: reversible-perspective drawings of spatial objects. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[48]  Guojun Lu,et al.  Review of shape representation and description techniques , 2004, Pattern Recognit..

[49]  A. Paivio,et al.  Cognitive components of picture naming. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  Noel Sheehy,et al.  Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[51]  D. Bartram,et al.  The effects of familiarity and practice on naming pictures of objects , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[52]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Global shape cannot be attended without object identification. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  F X Alario,et al.  A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[54]  L. Carmichael,et al.  An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. , 1932 .

[55]  Ralph E. Geiselman,et al.  Perceptual Discriminability as a Basis for Selecting Graphic Symbols , 1982 .

[56]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: the role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[57]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  Picture naming by young children: norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1997, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[58]  R. Weale.  Vision. A Computational Investigation Into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. David Marr , 1983 .

[59]  F ATTNEAVE,et al.  The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. , 1956, Psychological bulletin.

[60]  Jacob Cohen.  The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[61]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Features and objects in visual processing , 1986 .