Where to Draw the Line: Effect of Artistic Expertise on Line Drawings of Natural Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans are able to quickly and accurately recognize scenes from line drawings. This suggests that contour lines are sufficient to capture important structural information from a scene. Indeed, previous work from our lab has shown that viewing line drawings elicits similar neural activation patterns as viewing photographs, and that curvature and junction information is most helpful for human scene categorization. However, these results are based on line drawings made by one artist. In this study, we ask what contours and structural features are conserved across line drawings of scenes made by different people, and whether artistic expertise influences this consistency. We first developed software in Matlab Psychophysics Toolbox for tracing outlines over photographs of natural scenes (18 scenes, 6 categories) using a graphics tablet. Contours can be drawn free-hand or by creating a series of connected line segments. Spatial coordinates of the strokes are stored with temporal order information. Next we asked 43 participants with varying levels of artistic training to trace the contours in 5 photographs. We then extracted properties of contours (orientation, length, curvature) and contour junctions (types and angles) from each drawing. We found that people generally agree on some lines while differing on others. Specifically, contour curvature, orientation and junction types have the highest correlation between drawings of the same scene, across all scene categories, while contour length and junction angles are more variable between people. We are developing algorithms to determine matches between two individual drawings of the same image, and will present results showing which lines are most commonly agreed-upon, with characterization of the underlying physical phenomenon (occlusion boundaries, shadow, texture). In conclusion, our results measure the amount of agreement between individuals in drawing the contours in scenes. They highlight the importance of curvature and junctions for defining scene structure. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".