Authors
Chaz Firestone
Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
Some things look more complex than others. For example, a crenulate and richly organized leaf may seem more complex than a plain stone. What is the nature of this experience—and why do we have it in the first place? Here, we explore how object complexity serves as an efficiently extracted visual signal that the object merits further exploration. We algorithmically generated a library of geometric shapes and determined their complexity by computing the cumulative surprisal of their internal skeletons—essentially quantifying the “amount of information” within each shape—and then used this approach to ask new questions about the perception of complexity. Experiments 1–3 asked what kind of mental process extracts visual complexity: a slow, deliberate, reflective process (as when we decide that an object is expensive or popular) or a fast, effortless, and automatic process (as when we see that an object is big or blue)? We placed simple and complex objects in visual search arrays and discovered that complex objects were easier to find among simple distractors than simple objects are among complex distractors—a classic search asymmetry indicating that complexity is prioritized in visual processing. Next, we explored the function of complexity: Why do we represent object complexity in the first place? Experiments 4–5 asked subjects to study serially presented objects in a self‐paced manner (for a later memory test); subjects dwelled longer on complex objects than simple objects—even when object shape was completely task‐irrelevant—suggesting a connection between visual complexity and exploratory engagement. Finally, Experiment 6 connected these implicit measures of complexity to explicit judgments. Collectively, these findings suggest that visual complexity is extracted efficiently and automatically, and even arouses a kind of “perceptual curiosity” about objects that encourages subsequent attentional engagement.
Keywords Complexity  Curiosity  Information theory  Shape perception  Visual search
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/cogs.12933
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Some Informational Aspects of Visual Perception.Fred Attneave - 1954 - Psychological Review 61 (3):183-193.
Perceptual Input Is Not Conceptual Content.Justin Halberda - 2019 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23 (8):636-638.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Complexity: Architecture, Art, Philosophy.Andrew E. Benjamin (ed.) - 1995 - Distributed to the Trade in the United States of America by National Book Network.
Analyzing Vision at the Complexity Level.John K. Tsotsos - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (3):423-445.
Two Types of Visual Objects.Błażej Skrzypulec - 2015 - Studia Humana 4 (2):26-38.
Abstract Complexity Definition.Mariusz Stanowski - 2011 - Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education (2).
Thisness and Visual Objects.Błażej Skrzypulec - 2018 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 9 (1):17-32.
Object Perception: Vision and Audition.Casey O’Callaghan - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (4):803-829.
Are There Auditory Objects in the Auditory Domain, Like Visual Objects in the Visual Domain?Sam Wilkinson - 2010 - PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness 16 (1):9-11.
A Complexity Level Analysis of Vision.John K. Tsotsos - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (3):423-445.
The Genesis of Complexity.Ralph H. Abraham - 2011 - World Futures 67 (4-5):380 - 394.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-04-20

Total views
242 ( #41,469 of 2,456,037 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
149 ( #3,694 of 2,456,037 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes