Visual features influence thought content in the absence of overt semantic information

It has recently been shown that the perception of visual features of the environment can influence thought content. Both low-level (e.g., fractalness) and high-level (e.g., presence of water) visual features of the environment can influence thought content in real-world and experimental settings where these features can make people more reflective and contemplative in their thoughts. It remains to be seen, however, if these visual features retain their influence on thoughts in the absence of overt semantic content, which could indicate a more fundamental mechanism for this effect. In this study, we removed this limitation by creating scrambled edge versions of images, which maintain edge content from the original images but remove scene identification. Nonstraight edge density is one visual feature that has been shown to influence many judgements about objects and landscapes and has also been associated with thoughts of spirituality. We extend previous findings by showing that nonstraight edges retain their influence on the selection of a Spiritual & Life Journey topic after scene-identification removal. These results strengthen the implication of a causal role for the perception of low-level visual features on the influence of higher order cognitive function, by demonstrating that in the absence of overt semantic content, low-level features, such as edges, influence cognitive processes.

[1]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[2]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  Observers' cognitive states modulate how visual inputs relate to gaze control. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  C. Cela-Conde,et al.  Predicting beauty: fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. , 2011, British journal of psychology.

[5]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[6]  Lyn Bartram,et al.  What Makes Motion Meaningful? Affective Properties of Abstract Motion , 2010, 2010 Fourth Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology.

[7]  M. Bar,et al.  Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  Adam L. Alter The Benefits of Cognitive Disfluency , 2013 .

[9]  Stephen Kaplan,et al.  The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework , 1995 .

[10]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  The Wandering Mind , 2016 .

[11]  M. Berman,et al.  The Nature-Disorder Paradox: A Perceptual Study on How Nature Is Disorderly Yet Aesthetically Preferred , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Kathryn E. Schertz,et al.  Effects of methamphetamine on neural responses to visual stimuli , 2019, Psychopharmacology.

[13]  F. E. Kuo,et al.  ENVIRONMENT AND CRIME IN THE INNER CITY Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? , 2001 .

[14]  Lyn Bartram,et al.  Affective motion textures , 2012, Comput. Graph..

[15]  David D. Cox,et al.  Untangling invariant object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  F. Pulvermüller How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Ethan A. McMahan,et al.  The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis , 2015 .

[18]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[19]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[20]  Hans Loidl,et al.  Opening Spaces: Design As Landscape Architecture , 2014 .

[21]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  SUN database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[22]  Jonathan Robinson,et al.  TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[23]  Wilhelm Burger,et al.  Digital Image Processing - An Algorithmic Introduction using Java , 2008, Texts in Computer Science.

[24]  D. Gilbert,et al.  A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind , 2010, Science.

[25]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom–up processing of the visual features of nature? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[26]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[27]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[28]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .

[29]  A. Logan,et al.  Natural environments and mental health , 2015 .

[30]  J. P. Hamilton,et al.  Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Marc G. Berman,et al.  Image Feature Types and Their Predictions of Aesthetic Preference and Naturalness , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[32]  R. Berto Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity , 2005 .

[33]  S. Mourato,et al.  Happiness is greater in natural environments , 2013 .

[34]  A. V. D. Berg,et al.  Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research , 2011 .

[35]  Talia Konkle,et al.  Mid-level visual features underlie the high-level categorical organization of the ventral stream , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Kathryn E. Schertz,et al.  Understanding Nature and Its Cognitive Benefits , 2019, Current Directions in Psychological Science.

[37]  L. Bui Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side , 2016 .

[38]  Omid Kardan,et al.  The order of disorder: Deconstructing visual disorder and its effect on rule-breaking. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Kwan Hui Lim,et al.  The Grass is Greener on the Other Side: Understanding the Effects of Green Spaces on Twitter User Sentiments , 2018, WWW.

[40]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  The Perception of Naturalness Correlates with Low-Level Visual Features of Environmental Scenes , 2014, PloS one.

[41]  Marc G. Berman,et al.  A thought in the park: The influence of naturalness and low-level visual features on expressed thoughts , 2018, Cognition.

[42]  Marc G. Berman,et al.  Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture , 2019, Journal of Environmental Psychology.

[43]  F. E. Kuo,et al.  Environment and Crime in the Inner City , 2001 .

[44]  Visual interference disrupts visual and only visual knowledge. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[45]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Confronting a traumatic event: toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[46]  Kathryn E. Schertz,et al.  Positive Effects of Nature on Cognitive Performance Across Multiple Experiments: Test Order but Not Affect Modulates the Cognitive Effects , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[47]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions , 2012, Cortex.

[48]  Christopher M. Danforth,et al.  Visitors to urban greenspace have higher sentiment and lower negativity on Twitter , 2018, People and Nature.

[49]  N. Breslow,et al.  Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models , 1993 .