Visual communication of object concepts at different levels of abstraction

People can produce drawings of specific entities (e.g., Garfield), as well as general categories (e.g., “cat”). What explains this ability to produce such varied drawings of even highly familiar object concepts? We hypothesized that drawing objects at different levels of abstraction depends on both sensory information and representational goals, such that drawings intended to portray a recently seen object preserve more detail than those intended to represent a category. Participants drew objects cued either with a photo or a category label. For each cue type, half the participants aimed to draw a specific exemplar; the other half aimed to draw the category. We found that label-cued category drawings were the most recognizable at the basic level, whereas photo-cued exemplar drawings were the least recognizable. Together, these findings highlight the importance of task context for explaining how people use drawings to communicate visual concepts in different ways.

[1]  Jeffrey D. Wammes,et al.  Drawing and memory: Using visual production to alleviate concreteness effects , 2020, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Wilma A. Bainbridge,et al.  Drawings of real-world scenes during free recall reveal detailed object and spatial information in memory , 2019, Nature Communications.

[3]  Stella X. Yu,et al.  Unsupervised Feature Learning via Non-parametric Instance Discrimination , 2018, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[4]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Mike Wu,et al.  Pragmatic Inference and Visual Abstraction Enable Contextual Flexibility During Visual Communication , 2019, Computational Brain & Behavior.

[6]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Word learning as Bayesian inference. , 2007, Psychological review.

[7]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Disentangling contributions of visual information and interaction history in the formation of graphical conventions , 2019, CogSci.

[8]  Cave Art , 2021, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[9]  Bria Long,et al.  Developmental changes in the ability to draw distinctive features of object categories , 2019, CogSci.

[10]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  Artificial Intelligence Progress Report , 1972 .

[11]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Unsupervised neural network models of the ventral visual stream , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[13]  T. Rogers,et al.  A duck with four legs: Investigating the structure of conceptual knowledge using picture drawing in semantic dementia , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[14]  Logan Fiorella,et al.  Drawing Boundary Conditions for Learning by Drawing , 2018, Educational Psychology Review.

[15]  Daniel L. K. Yamins,et al.  Common Object Representations for Visual Production and Recognition , 2018, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  S. Thompson-Schill,et al.  The evocative power of words: activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[18]  K. Goedert,et al.  Clock drawing in spatial neglect: a comprehensive analysis of clock perimeter, placement, and accuracy. , 2012, Journal of neuropsychology.

[19]  Ernst Gombrich,et al.  The Story of Art , 1950 .