Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T17:24:14.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Figures in and out of context: absent, simple, complex and halved spatial fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
Chris Lange-Küttner
Edited by
Chris Lange-Küttner  and
Annie Vinter
Chris Lange-Küttner
Affiliation:
London Metropolitan University
Chris Lange-Küttner
Affiliation:
London Metropolitan University
Annie Vinter
Affiliation:
Université de Bourgogne, France
Get access

Summary

As in Lewin's theory of the interaction between field forces and figures in real life, Lange-Küttner explains that similar interactions occur between figures and spatial fields in pictorial space. Young children initially draw just figures in empty space with only implicit spatial relations, but gradually the spatial context becomes explicit and elaborated in an increasingly complex fashion. She thus assumes an initial object-based figure representation, which later changes into a space-based figure representation. This is illustrated by a comparison between figure drawings of young children and visual neglect patients. Lange-Küttner demonstrates empirically that figure size in children's drawings is increasingly determined by powerful pictorial rules rather than by environmental experiential factors. Her experimental studies show an emerging, systematic contingency between figure size and complexity of the spatial field, with sensitivity to spatial constraints as transitional mechanism between object-based and space-based figure representation. From an evolutionary perspective, axes systems are geometrically not more complex than spiderwebs, but while spiders continued to devour the objects caught in the net, the specifically human achievement appears to be the object permanence and apparent animation of the figures in the axes systems.

the spatial field was one of the central concepts of Lewin (1951, 1963/1982), where superior forces were impacting on figures, which could evade them by leaving the field, find ways around boundaries and barriers in order to reach a goal, or cope with field forces by overcoming pressure and frustration.

Type
Chapter
Information
Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind
A Life-Span Perspective
 , pp. 195 - 216
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

Aldhous, P. (2006). Elephants recognize their mirror image. New Scientist, 192, 17.Google Scholar
Anati, E. (2002). Höhlenmalerei [Cave paintings]. Düsseldorf: Albatros.Google Scholar
Barlow, C. M., Jolley, R. P., White, D. G. and Galbraith, D. (2003). Rigidity in children's drawings and its relation with representational change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 124–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baylis, G. C. (1998). Visual parsing and object-based attention: a developmental perspective. In Richards, J. E. (ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention: a developmental perspective (pp. 251–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baylis, G. C. and Driver, J. (1995). One-sided edge-assignment in vision: 1. Figure–ground segmentation and attention to objects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behr, H.-G., Grohmann, H. and Hagedorn, B.-O. (1983). Charakter-Köpfe: Der Fall F. X. Messerschmidt [Heads with character: the case of F. X. Messerschmidt]. Basel and Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Bisiach, E. and Vallar, G. (1988). Hemineglect in humans. In Boller, F. and Grafman, J. (eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. and Koslowski, B. (1972). Visually preadapted constituents of manipulatory action. Perception, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, M. V. (1993). Children's drawings of the human figure. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Davies, A. (1985). Conflict between canonicality and array-specificity in young children's drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoache, J. S. (1989). Young children's understanding of the correspondence between a scale model and a larger space. Cognitive Development, 4, 121–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F. and Rosengren, K. S. (1997). The credible shrinking room: very young children's performance with symbolic and nonsymbolic relations. Psychological Science, 8, 308–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoache, J., Uttal, D. and Rosengren, K. S. (2004). Scale errors offer evidence for a perception–action dissociation early in life. Science, 304, 1027–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deręgowski, J. B. and Dziurawiec, S. (1996). The puissance of typical contours and children's drawings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, J., Baylis, G. C., Goodrich, S. J. and Rafal, R. D. (1994). Axis-based neglect of visual shapes. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1353–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edelman, G. M. (2006). The embodiment of mind. Daedalus, 135, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelstein, W., Keller, M. and Schröder, E. (1990). Child development and social structure: a study of individual differences. In Lerner, R. M. (ed.), Life-span development and behaviour (pp. 152–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Efron, R. and Yundt, E. W. (1996). Spatial non-uniformities in visual search. Brain and Cognition, 31, 331–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emile, O., Floch, A. L. and Vollrath, F. (2006). Biopolymers: shape memory in spider draglines. Nature, 440, 621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foelix, R. F. (1996). Biology of spiders. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young children. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: World Book Company.Google Scholar
Goodenough, F. L. and Harris, D. B. (1950). Studies in the psychology of children's drawings. Ⅱ. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 369–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodnow, J. J. (1977). Children's drawings. London: Fontana.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, J. (2006). Saving beauty. Mold and bureaucracy threaten France's Lascaux cave. Time, 167, 36–42.Google Scholar
Hagen, M. A. (1985). There is no development in art. In Freeman, N. and Cox, M. V. (eds.), Visual order (pp. 78–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halligan, P. W. and Marshall, J. C. (1998). Neglect of awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 356–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1812/1975). Wissenschaft der Logik. Erster Band: Die objective Logik [Science of logic. First volume: The objective logic]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner [reprint of the first edition by Schrag, Nuremberg].Google Scholar
Hesselberg, T. and Vollrath, F. (2004). The effects of neurotoxins on web-geometry and web-building behaviour in Araneus diadematus Cl. Physiology and Behaviour, 82, 519–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, G. W. and Riddoch, M. J. (1993). Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology. In Meyer, D. E. and Kornblum, S. (eds.), Attention and performance ⅩⅣ: synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 143–75). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kail, R. (1986). Sources of age differences in speed of processing. Child Development, 57, 969–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kant, I. (1781/1980). Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Critique of pure reason]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational change: evidence from children's drawings. Cognition, 34, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. (1993). Orientational bias model of unilateral neglect: evidence from attentional gradients within hemispace. In Robertson, I. H. and Marshall, J. C. (eds.), Unilateral neglect: clinical and experimental studies (pp. 63–86). Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (1989). Raumbegriff und Objektbeziehungen beim Kind [Space concept and object relations in the child]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (1994). Gestalt und Konstruktion: die Entwicklung der grafischen Kompetenz beim Kind [Gestalt and construction: the development of graphic competence in the child]. Berne: Huber.Google Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (1997). Development of size modification of human figure drawings in spatial axes systems of varying complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 264–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange-Küttner, C. (1998). Pressure, velocity and time in speeded drawing of basic graphic pattern by young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1299–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (2000). The role of object violations in the development of visual analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange-Küttner, C. (2004). More evidence on size modification in spatial axes systems of varying complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 171–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange-Küttner, C. (2006). Drawing boundaries: from individual to common region – the development of spatial region attribution in children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 419–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (2008). Size and contour as crucial parameters in children drawing images. In Milbrath, C. and Trautner, H. M. (eds.), Children's understanding and production of pictures, drawing, and art: theoretical and empirical approaches (pp. 89–106). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. (under revision). Habitual size and projective size: the logic of spatial systems in children's drawings.
Lange-Küttner, C. and Crichton, M. T. (1999). Change of spatial field effects in 16- to 20-week-old infants. Brain and Cognition, 39, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange-Küttner, C. and Green, H. (2007). What is the age of mental rotation? Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning, pp. 259–63.
Lange-Küttner, C., Kerzmann, A. and Heckhausen, J. (2002). The emergence of visually realistic contour in the drawing of the human figure. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 439–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange-Küttner, C. and Reith, E. (1995). The transformation of figurative thought: implications of Piaget and Inhelder's developmental theory for children's drawings. In Lange-Küttner, C. and Thomas, G. V. (eds.), Drawing and looking (pp. 75–92). London: Pearson/Prentice Hall (distributed by www.amazon.co.uk).Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York:Harper Brothers.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1963/1982). Feldtheorie: Kurt-Lewin-Werkausgabe, Band 4 [Field theory. Kurt Lewin Collected Writings, Vol. 4]. Berne and Stuttgart: Huber and Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Light, P. H. and Humphreys, J. (1981). Internal spatial relationships in young children's drawings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 521–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Light, P. H. and MacIntosh, E. (1980). Depth relationships in young children's drawings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logan, G. D. (1996). The CODE theory of visual attention. An integration of space-based and object-based attention. Psychological Review, 103, 603–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manly, T., Dobler, V. B., Dodds, C. M. and George, M. A. (2005). Rightward shift in spatial awareness with declining alertness. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1721–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer-Hillebrand, F. (1947). Die Perspektive in psychologischer Betrachtung. Wiener Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Psychologie und Pädagogik, 1, 141–61.Google Scholar
Mecklinger, A. and Meinshausen, R.-M. (1998). Recognition memory for object form and object location: an event-related potential study. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1068–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, M., Suddendorf, T. and Slaughter, V. (2006). Mirror self-recognition beyond the face. Child Development, 77, 176–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panofsky, E. (1927/1991). Perspective as symbolic form. New York:Zone.Google Scholar
Pérez-Rigueiro, J., Elices, M., Plaza, G. R., Real, J. I. and Guinea, G. V. (2006). The influence of anaesthesia on the tensile properties of spider silk. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209, 320–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1981). Le possible et le nécessaire I. L’évolution des possibles chez l'enfant [The possible and the necessary I: the evolution of thinking the possible in the child]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1983). Le possible et le nécessaire Ⅱ. L'evolution du nécessaire chez l'enfant [The possible and the necessary Ⅱ. The evolution of thinking the necessary in the child]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1956). The child's conception of space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. and Szeminska, A. (1960). The child's conception of geometry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Plotnik, J. M., Waal, F. B. M. and Reiss, D. (2006). Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 17053–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: it's not what you think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rayor, L. S. and Uetz, G. W. (2000). Age-related sequential web building in the colonial spider Metepeira incrassata (Araneidae): an adaptive spacing strategy. Animal Behaviour, 59, 1251–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reith, E. and Dominin, D. (1997). The development of children's ability to attend to the visual projection of objects. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risch, P. (1977). Quantitative analysis of orb web patterns in four species of spiders. Behavioral Genetics, 7, 199–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, I. H., Nico, D. and Hood, B. M. (1997). Believing what you feel: using proprioceptive feedback to reduce unilateral neglect. Neuropsychology, 11, 53–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, L. J. (2000). Evolution of side bias: motor versus sensory lateralization. In Mandal, M. K., Bulman-Fleming, M. B. and Tiwari, G. (eds.), Side bias: a neuropsychological perspective (pp. 3–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherick, I., Greenman, G. and Legg, C. (1976). Some comments on the significance and development of midline behaviour during infancy. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 6, 170–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silk, A. M. J. and Thomas, G. V. (1986). Development and differentiation in children's figure drawings. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silk, A. M. J. and Thomas, G. V. (1988). The development of size scaling in children's figure drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 285–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tada, W. L. and Stiles, J. (1996). Developmental change in children's analysis of spatial patterns. Developmental Psychology, 32, 951–70.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., Corbetta, D., Kamm, K., Spencer, J. P., Schneider, K. and Zernicke, R. F. (1993). The transition to reaching: mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. Child Development, 64, 1058–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, G. V. (1995). The role of drawing strategies and skills. In Lange-Küttner, C. and Thomas, G. V. (eds.), Drawing and looking (pp. 107–22). London: Pearson/Prentice Hall (distributed by www.amazon.co.uk).Google Scholar
Toomela, A. (2002). Drawing as a verbally mediated activity: a study of relationships between verbal, motor, and visuospatial skills and drawing in children. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 26, 234–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towse, J. N. and Hitch, G. J. (1996). Performance demands in the selection of objects for counting. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treisman, A. (2006). How the deployment of attention determines what we see. Visual Cognition, 14, 411–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ungerleider, L. G. and Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In Ingle, D. J., Goodale, M. A. and Mansfield, R. J. W. (eds.), Analysis of visual behaviour (pp. 549–86). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venner, S., Bel-Venner, M. C., Pasquet, A. and Leborgne, R. (2003). Body-mass dependent cost of web-building behaviour in an orb weaving spider, Zygiella x-notata. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinter, A. and Perruchet, P. (2000). Implicit learning in children is not related to age: evidence from drawing behaviour. Child Development, 71, 1223–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vollrath, F. (2005). Spiders’ webs. Current Biology, 15, R364–R365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vollrath, F., Downes, M. and Krackow, S. (1997). Design variability in web geometry of an orb-weaving spider. Physiology and Behaviour, 62, 735–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willats, J. (1997). Art and representation: new principles in the analysis of pictures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zhi, Z., Thomas, G. V. and Robinson, E. J. (1997). Constraints on representational change: drawing a man with two heads. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×