Development of drawing abilities in a distinct population: Depiction of perceptual principles by three children with congenital total blindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the development of spontaneous tactile drawing in three 12-year-old children with congenital total blindness and with no previous drawing tuition. In a period of 9 months, from an initial phase in which they were taught to draw tangible straight and curve raised lines, the three blind children went on making spontaneous raised outlines representing edges, surfaces of objects, vantage point, and motion. The corpus of drawings produced by these children shows that several aspects of outline pictures can be implemented through touch. The perceptual principles represented in these drawings are comparable to those commonly found in sighted children. On the one hand, this convergence indicates similarities in the way vision and touch mediate the acquisition and the conceptualisation of spatial information from objects and the environment. On the other hand, it reflects the influence of cross-modal plasticity typically associated with early or congenital blindness. This study suggests that drawing development in general does not depend on learning pictorial conventions. Rather it seems driven by natural generativity based on children’s knowledge of space and perceptual principles.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".