Perception of impossible line drawings by pre-school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impossible figures, like the Penrose Rectangle, provide effective line junction information for the 3-dimensional shape of object parts. What makes a display “impossible” is that the parts cannot be combined into a consistent whole object. Previous work has shown that the ability to detect impossible figures improves between 7 and 14 years of age (Young & Deregowski, 1981). In contrast, in a recent study 4-month-old infants were habituated to a cube in which intersecting bars were occluded by an ellipse and then presented with two test displays in which the ellipse was removed. In one display the depth order of the bars was possible while the other showed an impossible version of the cube (Shuwairi, Albert & Johnson, 2007). The infants looked longer at the impossible cube. The study reported here used this method to investigate the developmental trajectory of the ability to understand impossible figures in toddlers. This study investigated 3- to 6- year-old preschool children's ability to detect the impossibility of a tribox (Penrose Rectangle). First, to ensure children were capable of discriminating the subtle differences between the possible and impossible figures, they were shown these figures with the common interior lines removed and asked to do a matching task. Those who passed the matching task were then asked to match a partially covered figure with either the possible or impossible figure. The result showed that children older than 4.5 years selected the possible figure reliably more often than the impossible figure. In contrast, the performance of the younger group was at chance. These results suggest that 3- to 4.5-year-old children are poorer than older children at attending to conflicts between information provided by local spatial cues. Future work will be needed to reconcile these results with the report of sensitivity to impossible objects in infants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".