Differences between individuals with and without autism in copying tasks: how knowledge interferes when drawing perspective

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489730.016

16 - Differences between individuals with and without autism in copying tasks: how knowledge interferes when drawing perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Elizabeth Sheppard ,

Peter Mitchell and

Danielle Ropar

Edited by

Chris Lange-Küttner and

Annie Vinter

Show author details

Elizabeth Sheppard: Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Peter Mitchell: Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Danielle Ropar: Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Chris Lange-Küttner: Affiliation:
London Metropolitan University
Annie Vinter: Affiliation:
Université de Bourgogne, France

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Sheppard, Mitchell and Ropar investigate whether individuals with autism are less likely than control participants to use object-specific drawing schemata which do not depict the model they actually see. Self-taught savant skills are much more frequent in autistic populations, and it is assumed that these may be responsible for a less conceptual approach which allows lower-level perceptual processing to prevail. However, because the empirical results from previous research did not prove to be conclusive, Sheppard, Mitchell and Ropar in several studies used tasks where in one condition a purely geometrical form was presented, while in the other condition features were added to convey the impression of a more meaningful object from everyday life. In children and adults without autism, meaningfulness could lower or enhance the level of drawing, depending on the kind of object, while spatial complexity appeared always to make drawing more difficult. Individuals with autism, however, were better able either to overcome or to ignore conceptual object knowledge, in particular when recreating a line drawing. It is concluded that this result reflects a special ability for literal understanding in autism.

a great deal of research on drawing has focused on the effects of conceptual knowledge on performance. Generally, the bulk of findings suggest that prior knowledge about the subject matter interferes with accurate depiction. It seems that participants are liable to rely upon this instead of the viewpoint-specific information projected onto the retina. In other words, people sometimes draw what they know rather than what they see.

Type: Chapter
Information: Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind
A Life-Span Perspective
, pp. 325 - 343

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489730.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baron-Cohen, S. (1987). Autism and symbolic play. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 139–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baron-Cohen, S. (1989). Are autistic children behaviorists? An examination of their mental–physical and appearance–reality distinctions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 579–600.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. and Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioral and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 113–25.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bremner, J. G. (1984). Errors towards the perpendicular in children's copies of angular figures: a test of the bisection interpretation. Perception, 13, 117–28.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Charman, T. and Baron-Cohen, S. (1993). Drawing development in autism: the intellectual to visual realism shift. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 171–85.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chen, M. J. (1985). Young children's representational drawings of solid objects: a comparison of drawing and copying. In Freeman, N. H. and Cox, M. V. (eds.), Visual order: the nature and development of pictorial representation (pp. 157–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. J. and Bennett, S. (1997). Why can't most people draw what they see?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 609–21.Google Scholar PubMed

Eames, K. and Cox, M. V. (1994). Visual realism in the drawings of autistic, Down's syndrome and normal children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 235–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Freeman, N. and Janikoun, R. (1972). Intellectual realism in children's drawings of a familiar object with distinctive features. Child Development, 43, 1116–21.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Frith, U. (2003). Autism: explaining the enigma. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. H. (1984). Art and illusion. (Bollingen Series 35.)Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Hill, A. L. (1977). Idiot savants: rate of incidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 161–2.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kubovy, M. (1986). The psychology of perspective and Renaissance art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, M. (1989). When is an object not an object? The effect of ‘meaning’ upon the copying of line drawings. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 15–37.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: the origins of ‘Theory of Mind’. Psychological Review, 94, 412–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Luquet, G. H. (2001). Children's drawings. Trans. Alan Costall. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar

Mitchell, P. and Isaacs, J. E. (1994). Understanding of verbal representation in children with autism: the case of referential opacity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 439–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mitchell, P., Ropar, D., Ackroyd, K. and Rajendran, G. (2005). How perception impacts on drawings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 996–1003.Google Scholar PubMed

Moore, V. (1987). The influence of experience on children's drawings of a familiar and unfamiliar object. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 221–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mottron, L., Belleville, S. and Ménard, E. (1999). Local bias in autistic subjects as evidenced by graphic tasks: perceptual hierarchization or working memory deficit?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 743–55.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Phillips, W. A., Hobbs, S. B. and Pratt, F. R. (1978). Intellectual realism in children's drawings of cubes. Cognition, 6, 15–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rimland, B. (1978). Savant capabilities of autistic children and their cognitive implications. In Serban, G. (ed.), Cognitive defects in the development of mental illness (pp. 43–65). Oxford: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar

Ropar, D. and Mitchell, P. (2002). Shape constancy in autism: the role of prior knowledge and perspective cues. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 647–53.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sheppard, E., Ropar, D. and Mitchell, P. (2005). The impact of meaning and dimensionality on the accuracy of children's copying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 365–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sheppard, E., Ropar, D. and Mitchell, P. (2007). The impact of meaning and dimensionality on copying accuracy in individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 1913–24.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sheppard, E., Ropar, D. and Mitchell, P. (in prep.). Autism and dimensionality: differences between drawing and copying tasks.

Snyder, A. W. and Thomas, M. (1997). Autistic artists give clues to cognition. Perception, 26, 93–6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thouless, R. H. (1931). Phenomenal regression to the real object. Ⅱ. British Journal of Psychology, 22, 1–30.Google Scholar