Human perception and machine vision reveal rich latent structure in human figure drawings.

Clint A Jensen, Dillanie Sumanthiran, Heather L Kirkorian, Brittany G Travers, Karl S Rosengren, Timothy T Rogers
Author Information
  1. Clint A Jensen: Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
  2. Dillanie Sumanthiran: Department of Brain and Cognitive Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
  3. Heather L Kirkorian: Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
  4. Brittany G Travers: Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
  5. Karl S Rosengren: Department of Brain and Cognitive Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
  6. Timothy T Rogers: Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Abstract

For over a hundred years, children's drawings have been used to assess children's intellectual, emotional, and physical development, characterizing children on the basis of intuitively derived checklists to identify the presence or absence of features within children's drawings. The current study investigates whether contemporary data science tools, including deep neural network models of vision and crowd-based similarity ratings, can reveal latent structure in human figure drawings beyond that captured by checklists, and whether such structure can aid in understanding aspects of the child's cognitive, perceptual, and motor competencies. We introduce three new metrics derived from innovations in machine vision and crowd-sourcing of human judgments and show that they capture a wealth of information about the participant beyond that expressed by standard measures, including age, gender, motor abilities, personal/social behaviors, and communicative skills. Machine-and human-derived metrics captured somewhat different aspects of structure across drawings, and each were independently useful for predicting some participant characteristics. For example, machine embeddings seemed sensitive to the magnitude of the drawing on the page and stroke density, while human-derived embeddings appeared sensitive to the overall shape and parts of a drawing. Both metrics, however, independently explained variation on some outcome measures. Machine embeddings explained more variation than human embeddings on all subscales of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (a parent report of developmental milestones) and on measures of grip and pinch strength, while each metric accounted for unique variance in models predicting the participant's gender. This research thus suggests that children's drawings may provide a richer basis for characterizing aspects of cognitive, behavioral, and motor development than previously thought.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pediatr. 1967 Aug;71(2):181-91 [PMID: 6029467]
  2. J Neurosci. 2015 Jul 8;35(27):10005-14 [PMID: 26157000]
  3. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1996;61(1-2):27-58 [PMID: 8657168]
  4. Percept Mot Skills. 1981 Oct;53(2):343-8 [PMID: 7312519]
  5. Dev Psychol. 2020 Jan;56(1):28-39 [PMID: 31697094]
  6. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2022 Dec;33(12):6999-7019 [PMID: 34111009]
  7. Psychol Sci. 2014 Oct;25(10):1843-50 [PMID: 25143430]
  8. Psychol Bull. 1950 Sep;47(5):369-433 [PMID: 14776171]
  9. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Dec 18;10(12):e1003963 [PMID: 25521294]
  10. Age Ageing. 2011 Jul;40(4):423-9 [PMID: 21624928]
  11. Percept Mot Skills. 1998 Jun;86(3 Pt 2):1299-310 [PMID: 9700806]
  12. Percept Mot Skills. 2015 Jun;120(3):865-94 [PMID: 26029964]
  13. Cogn Sci. 2023 Jan;47(1):e13226 [PMID: 36617318]
  14. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2013 Aug;78(4):1-15 [PMID: 23952199]
  15. Child Dev. 2018 Nov;89(6):1943-1955 [PMID: 29557555]
  16. Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7814):103-108 [PMID: 32494012]
  17. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2013 Aug;78(4):16-33 [PMID: 23952200]
  18. Br J Psychol. 2013 Aug;104(3):413-37 [PMID: 23848390]
  19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8619-24 [PMID: 24812127]
  20. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2007 Feb;10(1):96-105 [PMID: 17539369]
  21. Neuropsychology. 2009 Mar;23(2):231-9 [PMID: 19254096]
  22. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Sep 1;33(10):2044-2064 [PMID: 34272948]
  23. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2019 Dec;22(6):508-513 [PMID: 31544730]
  24. Pediatrics. 2001 Aug;108(2):E31 [PMID: 11483841]
  25. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2015 Nov 24;1:417-446 [PMID: 28532370]
  26. Hum Nat. 2022 Dec;33(4):400-424 [PMID: 36515859]
  27. Cognition. 1990 Jan;34(1):57-83 [PMID: 1689233]
  28. Cogn Sci. 2018 Nov;42(8):2670-2698 [PMID: 30125986]
  29. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021 Dec;1505(1):55-78 [PMID: 33754368]
  30. Percept Mot Skills. 2000 Feb;90(1):3-24 [PMID: 10769876]
  31. Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 10;6:27755 [PMID: 27282108]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0drawingshumanchildren'svisionstructuremachineembeddingsdevelopmentfigureaspectsmotormetricsmeasuresdrawingcharacterizingbasisderivedchecklistswhetherincludingneuralmodelscanreveallatentbeyondcapturedcognitiveparticipantgenderhuman-derivedindependentlypredictingsensitiveexplainedvariationhundredyearsusedassessintellectualemotionalphysicalchildrenintuitivelyidentifypresenceabsencefeatureswithincurrentstudyinvestigatescontemporarydatasciencetoolsdeepnetworkcrowd-basedsimilarityratingsaidunderstandingchild'sperceptualcompetenciesintroducethreenewinnovationscrowd-sourcingjudgmentsshowcapturewealthinformationexpressedstandardageabilitiespersonal/socialbehaviorscommunicativeskillsMachine-andsomewhatdifferentacrossusefulcharacteristicsexampleseemedmagnitudepagestrokedensityappearedoverallshapepartshoweveroutcomeMachinesubscalesAgesStagesQuestionnaireparentreportdevelopmentalmilestonesgrippinchstrengthmetricaccounteduniquevarianceparticipant'sresearchthussuggestsmayprovidericherbehavioralpreviouslythoughtHumanperceptionrichDraw-A-PersonVGG19childchildren’sconvolutionalnetworksontogeny

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)