Abstract
Traditional “feature analysis” theories of letter perception do a poor job of accounting for our ability to read handwritten letters. In this paper, an alternative theory is considered: Perhaps handwriting recognition makes use of information about how letters areformed, as well as of knowledge of static characteristics of letters, such as “distinctive features.” In an experiment testing this hypothesis, subjects saw artificial characters drawn in real time and were later asked to identify distorted versions of the same characters presented statically. Subjects were faster on static characters distorted in a manner consistent with the drawing method they had witnessed than on static characters equally distorted but inconsistent with the drawing method. This finding suggests that humans can use dynamic information in the perception of static forms.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Freyd, J. J. The mental representation of movement when viewing static stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics, 1983,33, 575–581.
Gibson, E. J., Gibson, J. J., Pick, A. D., &Osser, H. A developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962,55 897–906.
Gibson, E. J., &Levin, H.The psychology of reading. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1975.
Gibson, J. J. The problem of temporal order in stimulation and perception.Journal of Psychology, 1966,62, 141–149.
Hyman, R., &Frost, N. Gradients and schema in pattern recognition. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance V. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Johansson, G. Visual motion perception.Scientific American, 1975,232(6), 76–88.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. S., &Studdart-Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 431–461.
Pick, A. D. Improvement of visual and tactual form discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965,69, 331–339.
Shepard, R. N. Psychophysical complementarity. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981.
Simner, M. L. The grammar of action and children’s printing.Developmental Psychology, 1981,17, 866–871.
Spelke, E. S. Perceptual knowledge of objects in infancy. In J. Mehler, M. Garrett, & E. Walker (Eds.),Perspectives in mental representation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1982.
Watt, W. C. What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? II: Composition.Ars Semeiotica, 1980,3, 3–46.
Zimmer, A. DO we see what makes our script characteristic or do we only feel it? Modes of sensory control in handwriting.Psychological Research, 1982,44, 165–174.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was funded by NSF Grant BNS 80-05517, awarded to Roger Shepard.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Freyd, J.J. Representing the dynamics of a static form. Mem Cogn 11, 342–346 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202447
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202447