Washburn, Humphrey. 2001. Symmetries in the Mind Production , Perception , And Preference for Seven...

7/29/2019 Washburn, Humphrey. 2001. Symmetries in the Mind Production , Perception , And Preference for Seven One-Dim…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/washburn-humphrey-2001-symmetries-in-the-mind-production-perception- 1/13

Symmetries in the Mind: Production, Perception, and Preference for Seven One-DimensionalPatternsAuthor(s): Dorothy Washburn and Diane HumphreySource: Visual Arts Research, Vol. 27, No. 2(54) (2001), pp. 57-68Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20716037 .

Accessed: 04/07/2011 15:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Visual Arts

Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20716037?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20716037?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Symmetries intheMind: Production,Perception, andPreference forSeven One-Dimensional Patterns

DorothyWashburn

Maryland Institute,ollege ofArt

Diane HumphreyKing'sCollege

Abstract

Cultural factorsaffecting perception of the

differentymmetryombinations inthesevenone-dimensional band patterns were studied by

givingproduction,preferenceand perceptiontasks to art students and students untrained in

art. They first onstructed patterns on paper from

paper trianglesbefore and after training in

symmetry motions, preferences and amount-of

symmetry ratings of the patterns were taken.

Production, preference, and perception results

differed.Artistsmost frequentlyproducedvertically reflective symmetries while non-art

students produced bifold rotations mostfrequently.While all participants preferredpatterns that have symmetries known to have

greater salience (mirror eflection), nly artstudents also preferredless salient typesof

symmetriesbifold otation,lide reflectionnd

translation).

Symmetry inform is remarkable for its

ubiquity inboth nature and culturallyproduced objects (Enquist & Arak, 1994;

Hargittai&

Hargittai, 1994; Stevens, 1974;Washburn & Crowe, 1988). Mate selection

among several species (e.g.Moeller, 1992;Swaddle & Cuthill, 1993) appears to bedriven bybilateral symmetryofbody form,

possibly a characteristic of healthierorganisms and thusmore desirable as a con

tributorfmore viable genes for the next

generation (Thornhill& Gangestad,1993).Human beings also show specific discrimination and preference in terms of visual

lookingtimefor erticalmirrorreflection searly as fourmonths of age when symmetries are presented in dot patterns(Humphrey & Humphrey, 1989) and as

images of faces (Muir, Humphrey &

Humphrey, 1994). Symmetry in faces islikewisepreferredbyadults in estern andnon-Western cultures

(Rhodeset. al.,

2001).However, the special salience of verti

cal reflectionhas ledsome researchers to

focus on thissymmetryperhaps because itiseasier to detect (Baylis & Driver, 1994,2001; Bertamini, Freidenberg & Kubovy,1997; Freidenberg & Bertamini, 2000).

Other researchers compared finite nits in

vertical reflection timulito linearrepetitions,

implyinghatrepetitions ere notgenerated

by symmetries (Bruce & Morgan, 1975;Corballis & Roldan, 1974, cf.Fig. 1).

But since repeated patterns are generated by a number of symmetries and all of

these are knownand have been completelyderived and described (Grunbaum &

Shepard, 1987) and are used by culturesall over theworld toproduce repeated patterns (cf.Washburn & Crowe, 1988) testsofsymmetry erception should encompass

all of these symmetrymotions and motioncombinations.

One point of confusion inpast studieshas been a researcher's failure to be ex

plicit bout whether he or she was testingthe difference between perception of thefoursymmetrymotions?mirror reflection,rotation,translation,and glide reflection?or the perception of the differentwaysthese fourmotions can be combined to

produce one- and two-dimensional planepatterns. There are seven ways that re

peated symmetricpatterns can result fromthe repetitionof the fourbasic symmetrymotions along a single linear axis. Mathematicians call these seven unique com

VISUALARTS RESEARCH ? 2002 by theBoard ofTrustees of theUniversityf Illinois 57



binations of the fourmotions one-dimen

sional infinitepatterns. Likewise, the 17

"wallpaper" patterns that re formedby the

repetitionof these fourmotions along in

tersecting linear xes are called two-dimensional infiniteatterns. Most studies have

attended to theperception of the fourmo

tions,although as noted above, some re

searchers confused the issue by compar

ingperception of single symmetrical units

with linearpatterns created by combiningsome of these motions.

We wish toadd to the study of symme

try erception byoffering tudies thatcon

sider the cultural factors thatmay

affect

symmetryperception and preference. The

studies to date of this issue have reported

conflicting results. Washburn (1999, in

press) and Washburn and Crowe (2002)offercase studies of preferences forcer

tainsymmetries indifferent ultural situa

tions. Incontrast, incross-cultural tests,

Deregowski (1972) found Zambi?n

children's reproductions of patterns with

mirrorsymmetries did not differfrom imi

lar tudies in estern cultures. Rentschler,Juttner, nzickerand Landis (1999) found

mirror symmetry preference to be unaf

fected by category learningand thus con

cluded that symmetry preference ingeneral is innate. Inthispaper we seek tobalance our understanding of the basic hu

man preference forvertical reflection- n

apparently universal perceptual character

istic- ith explorations thatbegin to detail

thecultural factors thatcan

affect production fsymmetricpatterns and preferencesfordifferent ymmetries.We offer everal

kinds of tests that expose the difference

between symmetrysalience as a function

of perception and differential symmetry

preference as a functionof differentcul

tural factors.We have developed tests that show

viewers with two kinds of cultural experiences with pattern (artists nd non-artists)thecomplete array ofsymmetries thatgenerate linear,banded designs. There are

seven combinations of the fourmotions that

generate these one-dimensional patterns:translation (p111), verticalmirrorreflection

(pm11), horizontalmirrorreflection(p1m1),horizontal and verticalmirrorreflectionnd

bifold rotation (pmm2), bifold rotation

(p112), verticalmirror reflection nd bifold

rotation pma2), and glide reflection p1a1)(see Figure 1).We use the standard no

menclature of Washburn and Crowe

(1988). We test for ifferences in rtist and

non-artist production of patterns usingthese seven symmetries as well as for if

ferences in theirpreferences for theseseven symmetries.Our thesis is that if he

salience of differentkinds of symmetriesisentirelya perceptual issue, then the re

sponsesof the artists and non-artists

should not be significantlydifferent. on

versely, ifultural factors ffectpreference,then the responses of the artists and non

artists will differ. If ymmetry preferencevaries, thenwe need to explore the fac

tors that ffect thispreference.Inthisstudywe explore the effectartis

tictraining as on symmetry erception and

symmetrypreference by asking artists and

a control group of non-artists to respond

to visual arrays of patterns as well asto create patterns. We considered that

training in formreceived by artistswould

constitute one of the factors that charac

terizes and thus differentiates the visual

looking and creating activities of artistsfrom ther individuals. Infact, ithas been

previously observed by Nodine, Locher,and Krupinski (1993) that rtists focusmore

on design characteristics in representational

images,while untrained observers

focusmore on individual bjects in the im

ages. But, since they nly tested responsesto representational images, we wanted to

know whether this focus on composition is

also active when artists create and view

non-representational patterns by exploringwhether symmetry isone of these compositionaldesign features.But, in rder to test

whether symmetryprocessing for rtists is

perceptually and/or culturally based, we

need to test for the differentkinds of per

ceptual and cognitive skills used by artists

and non-artists. Thus, it is necessary to

present both artists and non-artists with

requests toproduce a pattern from hapes

58 DorothyWashburn /Diane Humphrey



(something that artists do) and also to re

quest them to inspect visually a set of

shapes already arranged in a pattern

(something thatboth artists and non-art

istsdo routinely). In thisway we could isolate responses thatwere peculiar to those

individuals having special training that

might relate todifferentkinds of symmetryuses and preferences.

Method

Participants

Fifty-one tudents at theMaryland InstituteCollege of Art (MICA) inBaltimore, Maryland: 25 females (mean age = 23.6 years,SD = 5.6) and 26 males (mean age

= 22.4

years, SD =3) participated in hestudy.The

Maryland Institute sa four-year tudio art

college where students receive instructionin arious art-makingmedia and receive a

BFA degree. Thirty-eightnon-art students

fromKing's College who had no post-sec

ondary art training: 2 females (mean age= 21.5 years, SD = 5.6) and 6males (meanage = 21.1 years, SD= 1.1) participated inthe study. King's College isa liberal arts

affiliate of the University ofWestern

Ontario, where graduates receive a B.A.

Training inspecific one-dimensional symmetries isnotpartof eitherMICA orKing'sstudents' regular curricula.

Procedure

Participantswere either tested individuallyor at individual esks in classroom where

theywere requested not to look at eachother'swork.The first askwas toconstructband patternswith right riangles cut fromcontact paper. Each participantmade onlyone design. They were thenasked to rateand rank theirpreferences for completearray of the seven one-dimensional patterns (see Figure 1) also constructed of

right riangles, and to rate the amount of

symmetry ineach of the seven patterns.Following this initial et of tasks, participants were given instruction nthe four ifferent symmetry motions?translation, re

flection,rotation, nd glide reflection?andtheircombination intothe seven classesof one-dimensional design.

Then the rating nd rankingtaskswere

readministered.We have used both ranking nd rating ests for hepreference tasks

because preferences for heseven specifickinds of symmetries inone-dimensional

bands have not been studied previouslyand thus the reliability f these measures

needs to be established. Ranking of patternswill indicate an ordering of preferences, while ratingwill further ndicate thedistances between preferences.

Task 1. Pattern Construction. Participantswere given twenty-four2 X 30 X 50mm right-angle symmetrical triangles, 12

right-sidednd 12 left-sided,ut from reen

contact-paper. They were instructed to

"make a linearpattern along a horizontal

line in hecenter of thepage using as manyof the24 trianglesas youwish. Notice that

you have 12 right-sidedand 12 left-sided

right-angletriangles that re mirror reflec

tionsofeach other.When you have finished

composing the pattern, affixthe trianglesto the page in that position by removingthe stick-on tape on theback."

Task 2. Preference Rating and Rank

ing and Amount-of-Symmetry Rating.

Participants (with heexception ofone maleart student) were shown sequentially, inrandomized order, the seven classes ofone-dimensional infinitepatterns madewith theasymmetrical right riangleseither

on a sheet of white paper 22 28 cm insize placed on the table in front f themwithpatternsize approximately 25 10 cmor on an overhead projector at the front ftheclassroom approximately threemetersfromthe participants,with the overall dimensions of thedisplay approximately 60

25 cm.

Participants were first sked to rate,then to rank each of the seven classes of

patterns intermsofpreference,

and follow

ingthis, to rateeach of the seven classesofdesign intermsof howmuch symmetrywas inthe pattern. Each task used a differentrandomized order ofpatternpresentation. Each taskwas accomplished for ll

One-Dimensional Patterns 59



seven patterns before the next taskwas

undertaken. These tasks were always

given intheorder preference-rating, preference-ranking, and amount-of-symmetry

rating.All tasks used a seven point scalewith equal intervalswhere 7was the highest rating nd 1was the lowest rating.

Participantswere thengiven training nthe foursymmetrymotions and their om

binations of these fourmotions into theseven symmetry classes of one-dimen

sional infiniteatterns in heorder of translation,vertical reflection,horizontal reflec

tion,vertical and horizontal reflection om

pill

pimi

pmll

pial

Figure 1. The seven one-dimensional infinitepatterns as described inWashburn and Crowe (1988).




bined, bifold rotation, ertical reflection ith

bifold rotation, and glide reflection as

shown inFigure 1.Trainingwas given as

follows:

The principle of symmetry isbasedon the repetitionof a fundamental

asymmetric unitbymoving it givendistance until itsuperimposes on it

self. Inthisdiagram notice how the

fundamentalpart isthe right riangleand it smoved along an imaginarylinear axis a given distance until it

superimposes upon another replicaof itself. his movement and

superposition of the part along a linear

axis can be repeated an infinite

number of times, thus the technical

term,one-dimensional infinite e

sign. There are four kinds of mo

tions thatcan move a fundamental

part inone-dimensional patterns:translation, rotation,mirror reflec

tion,and glide reflection.You have

alreadyseen themotion of transla

tion; a simple linearmovement of

the part along the axis until it u

perimposes onto thenextpartof thesame shape and size. The motionof rotation can only be two-fold

along a linear xis: two 180-degreeturnswill superimpose the part on

itself.ny other foldrotation ill take

the part offthe linear xis.The mo

tion fmirror reflection an occur in

linearbands across the horizontalaxis or across vertical axes which

perpendicularly bisect the horizon

talaxis. The motion of glide reflectionactually involvesa combination

of a horizontal reflection nd trans

lation.These fourmotions can be

combined inonlyseven ways toproduce the seven classes of one-di

mensional infinitepatterns. The

seven classes are present in thediagram you now see. [Themotions

in ach class were thendescribedas they ppear on thediagram (Figure 1)].

Class one, p111, has only themo

tionof translation.

Class two,pm11, has themotion of

vertical reflection.

Class three,p1m1, has themotionof horizontal reflection.

Class four, mm2, has the twomo

tions of vertical and horizontal re

flection.

Within and between each unit are

also points of bifold rotation.

Class five, 112, has themotion of

bifold rotation.

Class six,pma2, has themotion of

vertical reflection nd bifoldrotation.

Class seven, p1a1, has themotionof glide reflection.

The same preference ratings and preference rankings and amount-of-symmetry

ratingtasks were then repeated, butwith

differentrandomized orders of the seven

classes of one-dimensional design. For

consistency, inorder to establish the reli

ability f thepreference ratingmeasure, alltasks were administered with sequentialpresentationofpatterns.Patternswere presented simultaneously only during training.

Results

Task 1.Constructions

Examples of one-dimensional constructionsmade byartand non-artstudents areshown inFigure 2. The symmetryof theconstructed patternswas measured in wo

ways?Symmetry of theWhole Pattern and

Symmetries in the Parts of the Patternas described below. For consistency, sincesome of the participants overlapped thestick-on righttriangles in theirconstruc

tions, the symmetryof the visually apparent outline of the final formwas

recorded,regardless of theoverlap sequence. If ri

angle overlapping obscured a form, the

symmetrical relationshipso obscured wasnot recorded. Both authors rated each ofthese constructed patterns forSymmetries




rWrV *

mo

HBBBBI

Figure 2. Examples of patterns constructed by art and non-art students from right-angle triangles.

62 Dorothy Washburn / Diane Humphrey



in he Parts of thePattern until 100% agreement was reached.

Symmetry of theWhole Pattern. Of

the three axial categories?one-dimen

sional, two-dimensional and finitepatterns?as defined byWashburn and Crowe

(1988), forty-twoarticipants created one

dimensional patterns, ten participantsmade two-dimensional patterns and none

made finitepatterns. The remaining 37

constructionswere not symmetricalwhen

considering thepatternas a whole.

Symmetries in the Parts of the Pat

terns. The presence or absence of vari

oussymmetry

motions intheparts

of the

constructions was recorded. Specifically,presence or absence of three symmetrymotions, translation,reflectionnd rotation,was noted as was presence or absence of

each of the seven one-dimensional pat

terns shown inFigure 1. The fourthmo

tion,glide reflection,was never used.

A Manova (available fromtheauthors)revealed significantmain effectsofgender,

art-training nd type of symmetrymotionin the use of the threemotions of transla

tion,mirror reflection,and rotation.The

proportions of constructions made by art

and non-art males and females that use

the three symmetrymotions are shown in

Figure 3. Inorthogonal comparisons therewere significantlymore patterns using ro

tation than translation (F(1,86)= 13.5,

< .001) and significantlymore patterns us

ingreflections than translations and rota

tions combined (F(1,86) = 28.8, p< .001).Thus, themost frequentsymmetrymotion

in he constructionswas reflection, ollowed

by rotation,then translation.These effectswere notsignificantwhen considering only

0.8

Translation Reflectionotation

SymmetryMotion

Figure 3. Proportions of constructions by art and non-art students using each of three symmetry

motions: translation, reflection and rotation.




the constructions made bymales, eitherart students or non-art students. Females,

on the other hand,made significantlymore

constructions using reflection than other

symmetrymotions in the whole design.(Female art students; F (1,24) = 19.2,< .001 :female non-artstudents; F(1,31 )=

8.9, p<.01).

A Manova (available fromtheauthors)revealed a significantmain effectof sym

metry type and a significant interaction

between typeofsymmetry, ender and art

training. s can be seen inFigure 4, vertical reflection (pm11) and bifold rotation

(p112) were themost frequentlyused categories.

Because therewere incomplete specifichypotheses about differences between

symmetry types, non-parametric (KruskalWallis) testswere used incomparisons. In

Kruskal-Wallis tests between groups, significantly more non-art students, and non

art females inparticular, used bifold rotation in their constructions (see Figure 4)than did art students and art females in

particular (Chi-square = 5.1, p< .05; Chi

square = 5.6, < .05 respectively). It isnotable thatparticipants constructed bifold

patterns thatdid not juxtapose the right ri

angle in the same way that theywere ar

ranged inthe rating nd ranking tasks (asshown inthe seven one-dimensional patterns inFigure 1). Rather, triangleswere

grouped inpairs so that a pair together

made the outline of a rectangle.

Task 2. Rating and Ranking of Patterns

Means for art and non-art students' prefer

ence-rating, preference ranking and

0.8

111iai 112 pma2 pm11 pimimm2One-Dimensional Symmetry

Figure 4. Proportions of constructions by art and non-art students using each of the seven one

dimensional symmetry patterns.

64 Dorothy Washburn /Diane Humphrey



amount-of-symmetry-rating scores aver

aged (for implicity) cross pre-trainingnd

post-training are shown inFigure 5 also

averaged across females and males. Inan

overall Manova (available from heauthors)therewere significantdifferences between

pre-training and post-training trials

(Hotelling's Trace = .13, F (1,79)= 10.3,

< .01) and among tasks (Hotelling'sTrace = .49,F (2,78) = 38.4, p< .001), as

well as an interaction between task and

symmetry ategory (Hotelling'sTrace = 1.1,

F(2,68)= 6.3, < .001). Therefore, effects

in ach taskwere analyzed separately for

pre-trainingnd

post-trainingtrials.Means

and SDs of preference rating nd rankingand amount-of-symmetry rating for pre- and

post-training trialsare shown inTable 1.There were no significant ffectsdue to theorder ofpresentation of theseven patterns.

Preference rating. While non-art stu

dents clearly preferredpatterns generated

bycombinations ofsymmetries (pmm2an6pma2), artstudents' preferences were less

marked for ny of the symmetric patterns.(See Figure 5.) Kruskal-Wallis testswere

again used to lookat specific differences.Non-art students gave higher preference

ratings tovertical and horizontal reflection

(pmm2) than did art students both on pre

training (Chi-square= 19, p< .001) and

post-training (Chi-square = 3., p< .05) tri

als. On pre-training trialsnon-art students

gave higher ratingstovertical reflectionnd

bifoldrotationpma2)

patterns(Chi-square= 4.8, p< .05), but following trainingthere

was no longer a difference. On post-train

ingtrialsart students gave higher ratingsto translations (p111) than did non-art students (Chi-square = 5.6, p< .05).

O)?

1cceoS 3

1

ArtRatingArtRankingArtSymmetryNon-artRatingNon-artRankingNon-artSymmetry

p1111a1 p112 pma2m11

One-Dimensional Symmetry

p1m1 pmm2

Figure 5. Mean preference ratings, preference rankings, and amount-of-symmetry ratings forart and

non-art students foreach of the seven one-dimensional symmetry patterns.




Preference ranking. Preference

rankings f translations (p111)were greaterfor rt students than fornon-art students

both before (Chi-square = 10.6, p< .001)

and after (Chi-square = 7.4, p< .01) training. Before training art students gave

higher rankingstopatternswithverticaland

horizontal reflection and bifold rotation

(pmm2) (Chi square = 9.7, < .001 ),while

following raining henon-art tudents gave

higher rankings to these pmm2 patterns

(Chi-square = 6.7, < .01).

Amount-of-symmetry-rating. Therewere no clear differences found between

art and non-art students intheirratings

of

theamount of symmetry inthe seven patterns,either before or after training. hus,while some preferences differedbetween

the groups, theirview of how much symmetrywas present inthe patterns did not

differ.

Differences between pre-training and

post-training trials. Direct comparisonswithWilcoxon summed-ranks tests between pre-and post-trainingtrials revealedincreased preferences inboth ratingsand

rankings forvertical and horizontal reflec

tionwith bifold rotation (pmm2) for ll par

ticipantsconsidered together (z= 3.2, <

.001; = -2.3, < .05). (Allzs reportedhere are two-tailed). Ratings for mount

of-symmetry increased following trainingfortranslation

(p111),horizontal reflection

(p1m1), bifold rotation (p112) and glide re

flection(p1a1)(z= -3.25, < .001 ; = 2.1,< .05;

=-2.5, < .05;

=3.5, < .001

Table 1.Mean Ratings and Rankings ofSeven One-Dimensional Patterns Pre- and

Post-Training.

Preference Ratings

p111 p1a1 p112 pma2 pm11 p1m1 pmm2

Pre-trainingArt

Non-art

Post-trainingArtNon-art

3.192.82

3.38

2.53

4.29

4.51

4.5

4.5

4.284.79

4.595.87

3.824.61

4.41

4.42

3.37

3.92

3.82

3.87

4

4.47

4.64

4.32

3.674.32

5.29

5.63

Preference Rankingsp111 piai p112 pma2 pm11 p1m1 pmm2

Pre-training

ArtNon-art

Post-trainingArt

Non-art

2.91

1.77

2.531.66

4.2

4.32

4.38

3.76

4.73

4.42

4.47

4.84

4.72

4.61

4.784.45

3.16

3.5

3.3

3.29

4.083.79

4.32

4.2

3.97

5.44

4.495.79

Amount-of-SymmetryRatings

p111 p1a1 p112 pma2 pm11 p1m1 pmm2

Pre-training

ArtNon-art

Post-trainingArtNon-art

2.832.92

3.993.84

3.823.5

5

4.18

4.24.73

5.11

4.94

5.14.76

5.44

5.08

5.254.93

5.545.29

5.425.29

5.88

5.63

6.576.27

6.42

6.24




respectively).Thus, while preferenceswere

increased by trainingforthemost detect

able (Royer, 1981) and perhaps most

salient symmetry type of the seven one

dimensional patterns (pmm2),amount-of

symmetry ratings increased for the less

salient types of symmetry.

Discussion

The prevalent use of reflections incon

structions,particularly y females, appearstomirror the prevailing use of reflectionsindrawings by untrained children andadults (Humphrey, 1997). The obvious sa

lience of mirror reflectionscan be seen inthe present study inproductions made byboth trained and untrained participants.The use of bifold rotations, less preferredsymmetry, y untrainedparticipantscan be

explained by thesalience of reflective ymmetries. That is,most of theexamples with

bifold symmetry took the formof two tri

angles juxtaposed such thattheir ommon

outline produced a rectangular form(See

Figure 2 forexamples) itself shape withvertical reflection.Thus, the end result of

using bifoldmotion to construct a patternis shape with themost salient symmetry,vertical reflection.

A critical finding f this research is thatartists and non-artists did not choose thesame symmetries in isual preference tasksas theydid inproduction tasks. The participants untrained in rt showed clear preference in

ratingsas well as in

rankingsfor

patternswith pmm2 symmetry.This symmetry produces a stable shape with dominant mirror reflections. Ithas also beenshown tobe easily detected (Royer, 1981 ).In ontrast, art students preferred patterns

withmore motion, such as those generatedby rotation. hus, theyratedp112the highest and ranked pma2 the highest. The

pmm2 patternwas notamong themost preferredbyartstudents.Although thispattern

has bifold symmetry,the prevailing visualeffectemphasizes vertical and horizontal

(p111) and horizontal reflection(p1m1).For themost salient symmetry,vertical

reflection (pm11), our results agree with

those ofRentschier et. al. (1999). Neither

preferences norperception ofpm11 (vertical reflection) ppear tochange with train

ing for either art students or the control

group. However, whenwe

trained respondents on theof/iersymmetries,training edto increased preference for hepmm2 patterns forboth the art and non-art respondents, although ratingsof amount-of-symmetry did not increase forthispattern fol

lowing training. entschler et. al.were alsoable to influencepreferences for "repetition" (p111) patternswith theircategorization task. Inour study, symmetryclasses

p111, p1m1, p112 and p1a1 showed in

creased ratings of amount of symmetry

followingtraining.Apparently participantsgained an appreciation that different ymmetries existed and thatdifferent ymmetriescould yield different atterns.

While therewere specific differences

between rating nd rankingof some patterns, overall the general trends of ratingand rankingwere remarkably similar, ascan be seen inFigure 5. Perhaps simulta

neous, ratherthansequential presentationof thepatternswould yielddifferent esults,

particularly in rankingtask. The mannerof presentation could be reconsidered infutureresearch.

In summary, while the perception of

symmetry, as indicated in the relative

amount-of-symmetry ratings,did notdifferbetween artstudents and non-artstudents,therewere significant differences in the

productionof

symmetrical patternsand in

the preferences fordifferentsymmetriesbetween artand non-art individuals.Additional training in symmetries producedawareness for he less detectable symmetries,such as translationand glide reflection.

Our results confirmthat there isa general special salience formirror reflection,and, in ddition, show how one kindof culturalexperience (artistic ctivity) provides

an overlay that leads to specific preferences forspecific symmetrical arrangements. These results suggest thatmuchmore work needs tobe done toclarifyhowdifferent spects of culture affectpercep




tuai preferences for nd production of dif

ferentsymmetries. Our futureworkwill fo

cus on developing a cross-cultural test to

better study the factors related to these

cultural preferences.

References

Baylis, G. C. & Driver, J. (2001). Perception of

symmetry and repetition within and across

visual shapes: Part-descriptions and objectbased attention. Visual Cognition, 8, 163

196.

Baylis, G.C. & Driver, J. (1994).Parallel compu

tationfsymmetryut notrepetitionnsinglevisual

shapes.Visual

Cognition, 1,377-400.Bertamini, M., Friedenberg, J. & Kubovy, M.

(1997). Detection of symmetrynd perceptual organization: The way a lock-and-key

process works. Acta Psychologica, 95,119?

140.

Bruce, V.G. & Morgan, M.J. (1975). Violations

ofsymmetrynd repetitionn isualpatterns.Perception, 4, 239-249.

Corballis, M. C. & Roldan, C. E. (1974). On the

perception of symmetrical and repeated

patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 16,

136-142.

Deregowski, J. B. (1972). The role of symmetry

in atternreproduction yZambi?n children.Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 3,303

307.

Enquist, M. & Arak, A. (1994). Symmetry, beauty

and evolution. Nature, 372(6502), 169-172.

Friedenberg, J. & Bertamini, M. (2000). Contour

symmetry detection: The influence of axis ori

entation and number of objects. Acta

Psychologica, 105, 107-118.

Grunbaum,B. &

Shepard,G.

(1987). Tilingsand

patterns. San Francisco: Freeman.

Hargittai, .& Hargittai, . (1994). Symmetry:unifyingoncept.Bolinas,CA: ShelterPublications.

Humphrey, D. (1997). Preferences in symme

tries and symmetries indrawings: Asymme

tries between ages and sexes. Empirical

Studies of theArts, 15, 41-60.

Humphrey, . & Humphrey, . (1989).The roleof structure in infant visual pattern percep

tion. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43,

165-182.

Moeller, A.P. (1992). Female swallow preference

for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Na

ture, 357, 238-240.

Muir, D., Humphrey, D., & Humphrey, G. (1994).Pattern and space perception in young in

fants. Spatial Vision, 8, 141-165.

Nodine, C, Locher, P., & Krupinski, E. (1993).The roleof formal rt trainingn perceptionand aesthetic judgments of art compositions.

Leonardo, 26, 219-227.

Rentschier, I.,Juttner,M., Unzicker, A., & Landis,

(1999). Innate nd learned omponentsofhuman visual preference. Current Biology, 9,

665-671.

Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K.,

McKay, R. &Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractive

ness of facial averageness and symmetry in

non-Western cultures: In search of biologi

cally based standards of beauty. Perception,

30,611-625.Royer, F. L. (1981). Detection of symmetry. Jour

nal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Per

ception and Performance, 7, 1186-1210.

Stevens, P. (1974). Patterns innature. New York:

Penguin Books.

Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, G.W. (1993). Aver

ageness, symmetry and parasitic resistance.

Human Nature, 4, 237-302.

Swaddle, J. & Cuthill, I. (1993). Preference for

symmetric males by female zebra finches.

Nature, 367, 165-166.

Washburn, D. (Ed.) (inpress). Embedded symmetries. Albuquerque: Universityof NewMexico Press.

Washburn, D. (1999). Perceptual anthropology:The cultural salience of symmetry. American

Anthropologist, 01 (3),547-562.

Washburn, D. & Crowe, D. (Eds.) (2002). Sym

metry comes of age. Manuscript submitted

forpublication.

Washburn, D. & Crowe, D. (1988). Symmetries

of culture: Theory and practice of plane pat

ternanalysis. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Dorothy Washburn

120 Pleasant Valley Road

Titusville, NJ 08560

Diane Humphrey

Kings College

Departmentof

Psychology266 EpworthAvenue

London, Ontario, Canada

N6A2M3

68 DorothyWashburn / iane Humphrey

Washburn, Humphrey. 2001. Symmetries in the Mind Production , Perception , And Preference for Seven...

Documents

Transcript of Washburn, Humphrey. 2001. Symmetries in the Mind Production , Perception , And Preference for Seven...