Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alario, F.-X., & Ferrand, L. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 531–552.
Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183–193.
Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Attneave, F. (1971). Multistability in perception. Scientific American, 225(6), 62–71.
Attneave, F., & Arnoult, M. D. (1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 452–471.
Barry, C., Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 560–585.
Bartram, D. J. (1973). The effects of familiarity and practice on naming pictures of objects. Memory & Cognition, 1, 101–105.
Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonava, E., Devescovi, A., et al. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344–380.
Beck, H., Graham, N., & Sutter, A. (1991). Lightness differences and the perceived segregation of regions and populations. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 257–269.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguisitic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 158–167.
Boucart, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Global shape cannot be attended without object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 785–806.
Carmichael, L., Hogan, H. P., & Walter, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 73–86.
Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity in visual structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 269–301.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
Cycowicz, Y. M., Friedman, D., & Rothstein, M. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171–237.
Dell’Acqua, R., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2000). Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 588–615.
Donderi, D. (1973). Changes in visual recall memory following discrimination learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 27, 210–219.
Donderi, D. (2006a). An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception, 35, 823–835.
Donderi, D. (2006b). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73–97.
Donderi, D. C., & McFadden, S. (2003). A single marine overlay is more efficient than separate chart and radar displays. Displays, 24, 147–155.
Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1981). How direct is visual perception? Some reflections on Gibsons “ecological approach.” Cognition, 9, 139–196.
Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003a). The automated measurement of pictorial image complexity: A feasibility study. In D. Harris, V. Duffy, M. Smith, & C. Shephanidis (Eds.), Human-centred computing: Cognitive, social and ergonomic aspects (Vol. 3, pp. 205–209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003b). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 334–342.
Garcia, M., Badre, A. N., & Stasko, J. T. (1994). Development and validation of pictorial images varying in their abstractness. Interacting With Computers, 6, 191–211.
Garner, W. R. (1970). Good patterns have few alternatives. American Scientist, 58, 34–42.
Gauthier, I., James, T. W., & Curby, K. M. (2003). The influence on conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 507–523.
Geiselman, R. E., Landee, B. M., & Christen, F. G. (1982). Perceptual discriminability as a basis for selecting graphic symbols. Human Factors, 24, 329–337.
Harwerth, R. S., & Levi, D. M. (1978). Reaction time as a measure of suprathreshold grating detection. Vision Research, 18, 1579–1586.
Hochberg, J. E. (1968). Perception (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hochberg, J. E., & Brooks, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 337–354.
Hochberg, J. E., & McAlister, E. (1953). A quantitative approach to figural “goodness.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 361–364.
Hoeger, R. (1997). Speed of processing and stimulus complexity in low-frequency and high-frequency channels. Perception, 26, 1039–1045.
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book: Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. New York: Wiley.
Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113–139.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
MathWorks (2001). Image Processing Toolbox user’s guide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McDougall, S. J. P., Curry, M. B., & de Bruijn, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 487–519.
McDougall, S. J. P., de Bruun, O., &, Curry, M. B. (2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 291–306.
Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. (1928). On the use and interpretation of certain test criteria for purposes of statistical inference. Biometrika, 20A, 175–240, 263–297.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Noncommand user interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 36, 83–99.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 76(1, Part 2), 1–25.
Parker, D. M., Lishman, J. R., & Hughes, J. (1997). Integration of spatial information in human vision is temporally anisotropic: Evidence from a spatiotemporal discrimination task. Perception, 26, 1169–1180.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 216, 1236–1238.
Pind, J., Jonsdottir, H., Trggvadottir, H. B., & Jonsson, F. (2000). Icelandic norms for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) pictures: Name and image agreement, familiarity, and age of acquisition. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 41–48.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (1999). Index of norms and ratings published in the Psychonomic Society journals. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 659–667.
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2005). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface information in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Prosodic knowledge affects the recognition of newly acquired words. Psychological Science, 17, 372–377.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.
Stamps, A. E., III (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Boston: Kluwer.
Sutter, A., Beck, J., & Graham, N. (1989). Contrast and spatial variables in texture segregation: Testing a simple spatial-frequency channels model. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 312–332.
Taubman, D., & Marcellin, M. (2001). JPEG2000: Image compression fundamentals, standards and practice. London: Kluwer.
Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255(5), 114–125.
Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Treisman, A., & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285–310.
Vassilev, A., & Mitov, D. (1976). Perception time and spatial frequency. Vision Research, 16, 89–92.
Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 514–529.
Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrrell, L. (1995). Sources of disagreement in object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 822–848.
Wright, B. C., & Wanley, A. (2003). Adults’ versus children’s performance on the Stroop task: Interference and facilitation. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 475–485.
Zhang, D., & Lu, G. (2004). Review of shape representation and description techniques. Pattern Recognition, 37, 1–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsythe, A., Mulhern, G. & Sawey, M. Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behav Res 40, 116–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.116
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.116