The drawing rules of children: Sequence and direction

Pemberton, Elizabeth F.

doi:10.3758/bf03330374

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results indicate that although the tendency to draw in a particular direction increases with age, RL is more frequent than LR. This result is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Goodnow, 1977;Pemberton, 1987).…”

Section: Analyses Of Constructive Activitysupporting

confidence: 94%

Emergence of representational activity during the early drawing stage: process analysis

Yamagata

2001

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzed the process underlying the emergence of representational drawing. Eighty‐seven children aged 1–3 years were asked to color or draw either a simple picture (P) or a contour for an object (DC) in a shared task. After that, they were asked to draw their mother on a blank sheet of paper in a no drawn contour task (NC). Whereas 1½‐ and 2‐year‐olds were more successful in the P task than in the DC task, the 2½‐ and 3‐year‐olds were successful in both. The 2‐year‐olds were better in the DC than the NC task. The results show that 1½‐ and 2‐year‐olds can extract the component parts of a drawing even though they cannot produce them and children over 2½ years old can organize these components into a drawing by themselves. These findings indicate that representational drawing is based on the extraction of the component parts and the acquisition of the drawing ability to combine the parts into a drawing and that the beginnings of representational drawing are found in 1½‐ and 2‐year‐old children.

show abstract

Section: Analyses Of Constructive Activitysupporting

confidence: 94%

Emergence of representational activity during the early drawing stage: process analysis

Yamagata

2001

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Would this mean that horizontal direction strokes are more variable than vertical direction strokes? It is also established that the left-to-right direction strokes are more stable than right-to-left direction strokes and top-to-bottom direction strokes are more stable than bottom-to-top direction strokes (Goodnow & Levine, 1973;Pemberton, 1987). Pemberton (1987) believes that the preference direction of strokes are due to a rule-governed thought perceptual process.…”

Section: Stroke Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Literature studies on stroke making generally touch on the aspect of graphic rules or graphic routines; which described a set of principles or rules that specify elements such as where to start and how to proceed in children's drawing. The preferences of starting from the upper left hand corner of the page (starting rule), drawing from top to bottom and left to right (progression rule) over other directions are among the salient drawing strategy that could exhibit the influential of reading and writing (Pemberton, 1987;Lange-Küttner, 1998). They are based on two factors; (1) the position and movement of arm and fingers (Meulenbroek & Thomassen, 1991); which lead to (2) development of rules of sequence and direction (Goodnow & Levine, 1973;Pemberton, 1987).…”

Section: Stroke Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The preferences of starting from the upper left hand corner of the page (starting rule), drawing from top to bottom and left to right (progression rule) over other directions are among the salient drawing strategy that could exhibit the influential of reading and writing (Pemberton, 1987;Lange-Küttner, 1998). They are based on two factors; (1) the position and movement of arm and fingers (Meulenbroek & Thomassen, 1991); which lead to (2) development of rules of sequence and direction (Goodnow & Levine, 1973;Pemberton, 1987). As such, how we choose to draw a particular shape following a certain sequence depends on where we positioned our arm and fingers when drawing.…”

Section: Stroke Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Children adapt drawing actions to their own motor variability and to the motivational context of action

Shukri

Howes

2019

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past work on children's drawing from the "process oriented" approach focused more on how children draw without considering what and why they draw. Both what and why under the "product oriented" approach need to complement the question of how in order to understand children's drawing behaviour better. The work of this thesis focuses on the"process oriented" approach that deals with the motor process of children's drawing without neglecting the importance of the "product oriented" approach.This thesis seeks a better understanding on psychological processes involved in drawing and drawing development in children to study their drawing behaviour. This is why the thesis is reviewed under the theoretical framework of Adaptive Interaction. This framework (Chapter 2: Background and Theoretical Framework) studies children's drawing through a utility maximization approach that derives its explanatory power from three components of human behaviour; ecology, utility and information processing mechanisms.As such, it raises the following questions: (1)"How would children draw on a tablet given that they have cognitive and motor limitations?"; (2)"Why would children draw on a tablet given that there are limitations on tablet and drawing software?" The framework helps to provide an explanatory and predictive account of children's adaptation of drawing strategies on a tablet. The empirical work of the framework is conducted to answer the following research questions: (1)"How do children adapt their drawing strategies according to their own motor variability and to the limitations of tablet and drawing application?";(2)"How do a child adapt to the drawing actions according to his/her own motor variability?"; and (3)"Does adaptation to motor variability explain age-related changes in drawing performance?";To answer these questions, I conducted empirical studies (Chapter 3 to 6) to examine how children adapt their drawing actions to their own motor variability and to extrinsic motivations (rewards). My study consisted of drawing tasks that tested the model of movement planning based on the Statistical Decision Theory. The idea was to see how children act as ideal drawing planners when choosing movement trajectories on touch surfaces. I derived predictions of the hypothesis from children's drawing on a touch screen with regions carrying reward and penalties. When a penalty region is placed near to a target region, adults are known to alter their motor plan. In particular, they shift their aim point to avoid the penalty region. The model predicts shifts in subjects aim point in response to changes of reward and penalty structures within the drawing environment.The result of my studies show that children make near optimal adaptation to subjective rewards, their own cognitive and motor limitations and to the limitations of tablet and tablets drawing software. The work reported here shows that a child's strategies for drawing on a tablet can be understood as a Bayesian adaptation to movement variability, motivation and limitations of the...

show abstract

“…How prior knowledge guiding drawing is learned has been the subject of descriptive studies of drawing behavior across children and adults (e.g., [13,8,9,14]). Other studies have described single-session learning of specific objects, such as cubes or prisms (e.g., [15,16]). Our goal is to extend prior studies by combining a focus on learning that is rapid and generalizable with a formal computational account of this rapid learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning abstract structure for drawing by efficient motor program induction

Tian,

Ellis,

Kryven

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans flexibly solve new problems that differ qualitatively from those they were trained on. This ability to generalize is supported by learned concepts that capture structure common across different problems. Here we develop a naturalistic drawing task to study how humans rapidly acquire structured prior knowledge. The task requires drawing visual objects that share underlying structure, based on a set of composable geometric rules. We show that people spontaneously learn abstract drawing procedures that support generalization, and propose a model of how learners can discover these reusable drawing programs. Trained in the same setting as humans, and constrained to produce efficient motor actions, this model discovers new drawing routines that transfer to test objects and resemble learned features of human sequences. These results suggest that two principles guiding motor program induction in the model -abstraction (general programs that ignore object-specific details) and compositionality (recombining previously learned programs) -are key for explaining how humans learn structured internal representations that guide flexible reasoning and learning.Preprint. Under review.

show abstract

The drawing rules of children: Sequence and direction

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Emergence of representational activity during the early drawing stage: process analysis

Emergence of representational activity during the early drawing stage: process analysis

Children adapt drawing actions to their own motor variability and to the motivational context of action

Learning abstract structure for drawing by efficient motor program induction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About