Abstract
Several studies have shown that blind people, including those with congenital blindness, can use raised-line drawings, both for “reading” tactile graphics and for drawing unassisted. However, research on drawings produced by blind people has mainly been qualitative. The current experimental study was designed to investigate the under-researched issue of the size of drawings created by people with blindness. Participants (N = 59) varied in their visual status. Adventitiously blind people had previous visual experience and might use visual representations (e.g., when visualising objects in imagery/working memory). Congenitally blind people did not have any visual experience. The participant’s task was to draw from memory common objects that vary in size in the real world. The findings revealed that both groups of participants produced larger drawings of objects that have larger actual sizes. This means that the size of familiar objects is a property of blind people’s mental representations, regardless of their visual status. Our research also sheds light on the nature of the phenomenon of canonical size. Since we have found the canonical size effect in a group of people who are blind from birth, the assumption of the visual nature of this phenomenon – caused by the ocular-centric biases present in studies on drawing performance – should be revised.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Blind people’s ability to use drawings
There is extensive literature on the ability to use pictorial representations and the creation of drawings by people with blindness. Psychological research in this area has addressed topics such as the recognition of geometrical forms (Heller et al., 2006) or the identification of everyday objects on tactile drawings produced using a variety of techniques (Heller, 1989; Heller et al., 1996; Lederman et al., 1990; Mascle et al., 2022; Pathak & Pring, 1989; Picard et al., 2013, 2014; Picard & Lebaz, 2012; Theurel et al., 2013; Vinter et al., 2020) by blind participants of a wide variety of ages. In addition, research has dealt with relationships between haptic exploratory strategies and the recognition of two-dimensional embossed pictures or drawing performance (D’Angiulli et al., 1998; Magee & Kennedy, 1980; Vinter et al., 2012).
When it comes to the production of raised-line drawings by participants with blindness, the analyses have mainly considered the recognisability and quality of the drawings – assessed by researchers on their own or by judges (D’Angiulli & Maggi, 2003; Kennedy, 1993; Millar, 1975; Szubielska et al., 2016; Szubielska, Niestorowicz, & Marek, 2019b; Wu et al., 2022; see also Szubielska, Imbir, et al., 2020), including in particular the occurrence of “visual conventions” (e.g., perspective shortcuts, occlusion) in the drawings of people deprived of visual experience (Carboni et al., 2021; Kennedy, 2003; Kennedy & Juricevic, 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2008). Importantly, the recognisability and formal features (e.g., the use of contour lines) of the drawings produced under haptic control seem to depend on practice at drawing and the severity of sight impairment. Overall, the quality of drawings might increase with the drawing experience of participants with severe visual impairment, and be positively related to their ability to use mental visual imagery (D’Angiulli & Maggi, 2003; I & Shiu, 2010; Vinter et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020). In other words, drawing appears to be more challenging for people who are blind from birth than for late blind individuals. Nevertheless, as Kennedy (e.g., 1993) argues, the greater difficulty in producing drawings encountered by people with congenital blindness may be due to a lack of practice in drawing rather than the lack of vision per se. Such a point of view, built on a study conducted among children with visual impairment, is shared by Vinter et al. (2018). In addition, some studies have focused on a qualitative analysis of the metaphoric aspects of drawings, such as depicting movement, sounds or mental events (Kennedy, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Kennedy & Merkas, 2000; see also D’Angiulli & Maggi, 2003).
On the other hand, research on the quantitative characteristics of drawings produced by blind people is scarce. To our knowledge, only one study has so far tested the quantitative feature of drawing size (Wu et al., 2022) – but only in the context of recognising tactile drawings, not their creation by participants who are blind. In this study, congenitally blind participants needed more time to identify large- and medium-scale graphics than small-scale ones, probably due to similarities between the size of small-scale pictures and the actual objects (hence, the size was familiar, and the objects were easier to identify). It is possible that this finding was related to the experience of using tactile graphics by blind participants – the standards for creating these types of graphics recommend designing hand-sized embossed pictures (e.g., Edman, 1992). Visual experience and familiarity with using haptic exploration for recognising images (sighted people lack such experience) possibly modify the optimal size for recognising tactile drawings by touch, as the opposite results were obtained among blindfolded sighted people – in this case, the larger embossed graphics were more recognisable than the smaller ones (Kennedy & Bai, 2002; Wijntjes et al., 2008). In another study involving people blind since birth, it was found that the recognisability of the drawings produced from memory under haptic control depended on the actual size of the physical objects – more recognisable drawings were created for larger objects (furniture size) than for smaller objects (hand size) (Szubielska, Niestorowicz, & Marek, 2019b). Unfortunately, this study did not explore the size of the drawings produced by the participants. As we will discuss later, looking at drawing size in cases of blindness is interesting for several reasons, including testing the presence of a canonical size effect, which was first discovered in the visual mode (Konkle & Oliva, 2011).
Summing up, to date the research on the use of drawings by blind people has placed much more emphasis on analysing qualitative rather than quantitative features. More specifically, when it comes to the active production of tactile pictures by blind people, studies focused on drawing quality issues – mainly their recognisability, resulting from the (im)perfection of shape.
The canonical size phenomenon – Evidence from the visual and haptic domains
One of the more interesting properties of drawings by people with blindness, to date overlooked in the literature, is the size of the drawings created. This feature was first analysed in the drawings of sighted people made under visual control (Konkle & Oliva, 2011), which showed that the size of the drawing depends on the actual size of the object being drawn. More precisely, the larger the actual object is, the larger the area of a sheet of paper is occupied when drawing this single object. This effect was referred to as the visual canonical size phenomenon. The neural correlates of differentiating the objects’ real-world size were further found in the ventral temporal cortex (Konkle & Oliva, 2012b).
Research investigating the phenomenon of canonical visual size has not only used the task of drawing from memory but also a mental imagery paradigm (the size at which objects were imagined within the computer monitor’s frame) and a perception paradigm (the participant’s task was to view images of real-world objects and determine the size at which they looked best) (Konkle & Oliva, 2011). The results obtained in all the research paradigms analysed show a preference for representing objects in the frame as having a larger size, the larger the objects are in reality. This finding suggests that size information is a property of an object’s mental representation. However, so far, the canonical size phenomenon has only been tested in adults with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Interestingly, recent research by Chen et al. (2022) showed similar visual size preferences concerning hardly recognisable objects (i.e., pictures of so-called texforms, which maintain local texture and rough contour information). Participants consistently selected the texform presented at the canonical visual size as more aesthetically appealing. Furthermore, using a modified Stroop (1935) task, Konkle and Oliva (2012a) provided evidence that the objects’ familiar size is accessed automatically by sighted people when viewing images of objects.
Although the canonical size effect was initially assumed as visual (Konkle & Oliva, 2011), recent studies conducted in the visual and haptic domains (Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska & Wojtasiński, 2021; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020) have questioned the visual character of this phenomenon. In all these recent studies, the canonical size effect was investigated using the task of drawing from memory among participants without visual impairments. Although these studies found that larger drawings were produced in the visual than in the blindfolded condition (Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020), they revealed the canonical size effect in both the visual and the haptic domains. Intriguingly, the canonical size effect was revealed even when blindfolded participants drew on ordinary paper sheets, which drastically reduced the possibility of haptic control of the drawing that was created (which in turn was possible in the case of drawing on special foils for raised-line drawings, where participants controlled the in-progress drawing with their non-dominant hand) (Szubielska et al., 2022). However, these aforementioned studies on the canonical size effect in the haptic domain were again conducted among normally sighted participants, thus revealing the phenomenon of canonical size under blindfolded conditions is insufficient evidence for this phenomenon’s non-visual (abstract or multimodal) nature. After all, it is typical for sighted individuals to visualise spatial stimuli (Pantelides et al., 2016; Szubielska, 2014; Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2004), so the participants could have used visual mental images of objects placed in imagined frames when performing the blindfold drawing task.
The potential visual nature of the phenomenon of interest in this paper might be confirmed by testing people with blindness who (as we argued beforehand) have the ability to draw, but their mental representations are non-visual. If the phenomenon of canonical size is uniquely visual, it should not be manifest in congenitally blind individuals. However, previous studies suggest that the phenomenon may be spatial rather than visual (Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska & Wojtasiński, 2021; Szubielska, Wojtasiński, et al., 2020). Moreover, size is, by definition, a spatial property, and spatial cognition, being modality-independent, may occur via domains other than sight (e.g., touching objects and even verbal descriptions – for a discussion, see Loomis et al., 2013). Therefore, spatial information and spatial mental representation are not unique to sighted people or reliant on visual imagery (for a literature review see, e.g., Cattaneo et al., 2008; Ricciardi et al., 2014). Consequently, the canonical size phenomenon might be manifested in people without visual experience.
Mental imagery abilities of congenitally blind and adventitiously blind people
Researchers who investigated blind participants’ spatial abilities or mental imagery suggest that human spatial representations and underpinned cortical organisation might be visually independent. Likova (2012) argues that the primary visual cortex may provide for a modality-independent (possibly amodal) sketchpad function of the working memory, a function that is needed to process mental images. Others (e.g., Cattaneo et al., 2008; Ricciardi et al., 2014), based on the literature on the structural and the functional exploration of the brain of people with normal vision and those blind from birth, opt for a supramodal cortical functional architecture (since similar cortical networks seem to subtend visual and non-visual cognition of spatial properties both in sighted and congenitally blind individuals). Supramodality means that spatial information is processed by distinct cortical areas/networks independently from the sensory modality that carries information to the brain. Furthermore, the findings from behavioural studies using classic mental imagery paradigms (in which visual imagery used to be considered to be critically involved) compared spatial cognition in sighted and congenitally blind participants and showed that the classic mental imagery effects (e.g., scanning effect: Blanco & Travieso, 2003; Iachini & Ruggiero, 2010; or rotation effect: Marmor & Zaback, 1976) are also revealed in people who lack visual experience (for a review, see Cattaneo et al., 2008). To sum up, spatial mental representation in general and drawing processing in particular seem equally possible in people who are sighted and congenitally totally blind because mental imagery does not need to be visual (it may have a more abstract, spatial character).
Psychologists have long emphasised the relationships between cognition, knowledge and drawing (e.g., Freeman & Cox, 1985; Jolley, 2010; Kennedy, 1993; Luquet, 2001; Piaget, 1926, 1929; van Sommers, 1984; see also Konkle & Oliva, 2011). In the case of congenitally blind people, drawing from memory might be treated as an indicator of an ability to produce mental imagery (Szubielska et al., 2016) or the operation of the modality-independent spatial sketchpad of working memory (as suggested by Likova, 2012).
Drawing by congenitally blind people contributes to involving brain areas commonly associated with vision and visual imagery representations (Amedi et al., 2008; Cacciamani & Likova, 2017; 2021). However, of course, the results of these functional brain activity studies do not provide evidence that the mental representations of congenitally blind people are visualFootnote 1 (for discussion, see Likova, 2012) since – as mentioned before – spatial cognition seems to be modality-independent and drawing abilities refer to spatial cognition rather than visual perception.
Thus, congenitally blind and adventitiously blind people are similar in that they can use spatial imagery. At the same time, only adventitiously blind individuals can visualize spatial stimuli (Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2004; see also Picard et al., 2010). Some suggest that the ability to visualize is related to a preference for a particular frame of reference when representing spatial information (e.g., Toroj & Szubielska, 2011). In this vein, some studies have shown that people who are blind from birth predominantly use egocentric (body-centred) reference frames and adventitiously blind people – allocentric ones (Pasqualotto et al., 2013; Pasqualotto & Proulx, 2012; Ruggiero et al., 2012, 2022; Toroj & Szubielska, 2011). Therefore, when constructing mental representations, a congenitally blind individual refers an object to the body, and an adventitiously blind refers an object to another object (e.g., the object to the imagined boundaries in which it is placed). However, there is also evidence that adults (Chiesa et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2013) and children (Martolini et al., 2021) who are congenitally totally blind use allocentric spatial information where needed and (similar to sighted participants) spontaneously evoke allocentric spatial frames to perform spatial tasks; for instance, they adopt an allocentric survey strategy when mentally representing a town environment (for a review, see Ottink et al., 2022).
To date, it has not been established whether the size of actual objects is a property of blind people’s mental representations. Nevertheless, there are reports that congenitally blind participants find it challenging to accurately represent the angular size of an object at different distances from the observer (Arditi et al., 1988; Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2005; for a contrary finding, see Wnuczko & Kennedy, 2014). In turn, late blind people seem not to experience similar difficulties (Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2005). Perhaps late blind people not only estimate the angular size of objects imagined at varied distances more accurately than congenitally blind people, but they also more accurately represent the size of familiar everyday objects. However, some researchers argue that the imagery abilities, including those required to perform complex spatial tasks, of people who are blind from birth are underestimated (Eardley & Pring, 2007). Due to the higher mental imagery abilities of congenitally blind people than is stereotypically believed, among other things, it is possible to effectively teach mathematics (including geometry) to blind students (Ostad, 1989), and spontaneous drawing development in congenitally blind children is possible (D’Angiulli & Maggi, 2003).
The current study
The present study is designed to investigate whether the size of real-world objects is a property of the mental representations of adults with blindness, especially those blind from birth. In other words, we explored the canonical size effect (Konkle & Oliva, 2011) among adventitiously and congenitally blind adults, using the task of drawing familiar objects from memory. Like in the most recent study conducted in the haptic domain in this area (Szubielska et al., 2022), we used two materials for drawing – plain paper and special foils for producing raised-line drawings. The topics of the drawings were real world objects of eight different sizes.
Method
Participants
Fifty-nine adult participants with blindness participated in the study (28 totally blind, 31 with a sense of light) (initially, 64 blind participants were tested, but data from five individuals were rejected due to their uncertain visual status regarding visual memories – these participants lost their sight in early childhood). Two groups of people with blindness were tested: (a) congenitally blind (CB) (n = 30; 18 males, 12 females; 28 right-handed; aged 21–62 years, M = 34.80, SD = 12.34), i.e., those who have not seen since the beginning of their lives and (b) adventitiously blind (AB) (n = 29; 17 males, 12 females; 27 right-handed; aged 18–61 years, M = 40.83 years, SD = 12.36), i.e., those who lost their sight during their lives (when aged between 4 and 59 years; M = 20.10, SD = 13.72) and had visual memories. None of the participants had visual form perception. More than half of the participants in each group had a university degree (CB: 53%, AB: 52%), and the rest had, at most, a secondary education. None of the participants had a combination of disabilities. Detailed information about the participants is presented in Appendix 1 Table 4.
Sample size
The sample size was based on previous studies on the canonical size effect in the haptic domain (Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020). A priori power analyses using G-Power 3.1. (Faul et al., 2007) yielded the conclusion that, based on a significance level of p < .05 and a power of .95 (here and throughout) and the effect size of f = 1.08 (Szubielska et al., 2022), N = 8 participants would be needed to detect a within-participants effect of size rank in a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). In addition, the necessary sample size to detect a between-participants effect of visual status was estimated to be N = 28 – based on the effect size of f = 0.65, and to detect between-within interaction between size rank and visual status was estimated to be N = 12 – based on the effect size of f = 0.48 (Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020). Due to possible variations in experience of drawing within the group of people with blindness, we decided to test more than 28 participants.
Materials
Like in the previous studies on the canonical size effect in the haptic domain (Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska & Wojtasiński, 2021; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020), we used a Swedish raised-line drawing kit (i.e., a rubber mat with an A4 foil for producing embossed drawings), sheets of standard A4 paper, and sharpened pencils.
Design
We used a mixed design, with size rank (8) and material used (2) as within-participant variables and participants’ visual status (2) and order of drawing (2) as between-participant variables.
Procedure
Participants were tested individually in two blocks – using foil or paper for producing drawings. The order of these blocks (drawing on foil first vs. on paper first) was counterbalanced across participants. If needed, a short break was taken between blocks.
In the beginning, participants were familiarised with the Swedish raised-line drawing kit. Then, participants were asked to use their non-dominant hand to explore the embossed shapes produced during the drawing process (to have haptic feedback in the foil condition). Then, they were informed about the task, i.e., they were asked to draw from memory without a time limit a single object per sheet of paper/foil orientated horizontally (no turning of the sheet while drawing). Both paper and foil sheets had an A4 format. At no point in the experiment was it suggested what size the drawing should be, nor was the actual size of the objects to be drawn mentioned. Furthermore, none of the participants asked about the drawing size that we would expect in the study.
In each block, participants drew from memory, in random order: (1) key, (2) apple, (3) shoe, (4) backpack, (5) dog, (6) floor lamp, (7) car, (8) house (the same topics as were used by Szubielska et al., 2022, for drawings). These subsequent topics (and their numbers) correspond to objects that can be ranked due to their increasing size in the real world (see Konkle & Oliva, 2011). After producing the drawing, participants were asked about any additional objects that potentially were added to the object which was the subject of the drawing (unless the participants spontaneously provided such information while producing the picture).
After the drawing from memory task, participants were asked to provide their demographic characteristics (gender, age, level of education), their visual impairment history and severity and experience in producing drawings (“How often have you drawn?”) and familiarity with embossed graphics (“How often have you used embossed graphics?”; possible responses for both questions: “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often”, “very often”).
The study lasted 25 min on average per participant.
Data coding
The indicator of the drawn size of the object (in millimetres) was measured by the length of the diagonal of the rectangle bounding the drawing (like in previous studies in this field: Konkle & Oliva, 2011; Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska & Wojtasiński, 2021; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020). In line with the previous studies, extraneous objects were ignored (e.g., a fence next to the house; to identify these extraneous objects, we asked the participants about the presence of additional objects after they had made the drawings – “Have you drawn anything else in addition?”). Only the relevant object of interest was bounded around by a rectangle. As in the study by Szubielska et al. (2022), all drawings were scanned at a fixed resolution, the rectangle boundaries were determined using the Photoshop program, and custom software converted the dimension of the rectangle into millimetres and then – into diagonals.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Using Pearson’s chi-square test, we compared whether participants who were blind from birth and adventitiously blind differed in their drawing experience and familiarity with convex graphics. Both calculations did not yield significant differences between congenitally and adventitiously blind – respectively, χ2(4) = 3.75, p = .441, χ2(4) = 7.28, p = .122. Overall, 46% of participants declared that they had never drawn (for detailed information on the drawing experience and familiarity with convex graphics of both groups of blind participants, see Table 1).
Investigating the canonical size effect
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of drawn size for all experimental conditions. Examples of drawings made on foil and paper are shown in Fig. 1.
To investigate whether participants drew objects that are larger in the real world as larger and whether this depended on their visual experience, we computed an analysis of variance with the within-participant variables of size rank (1 – key vs. 2 – apple vs. 3 – shoe vs. 4 – backpack vs. 5 – dog vs. 6 – floor lamp vs. 7 – car vs. 8 – house) and material used (foil vs. paper), and the between-participant variables of participants’ visual status (congenitally blind vs. adventitiously blind) and order of drawing (on foil first vs. on paper first). We used the Greenhouse-Geiser-corrected values in case of violations of the sphericity assumption.
This ANOVA showed a significant main effect of size rank – best explained by the linear function, F(1, 55) = 159.75, p < .001, ηp2 = .74, a significant main effect of material (participants produced larger drawings on foil, M = 131.31, SE = 7.10, than paper, M = 114.21, SE = 6.50), and a significant interaction between size rank and visual status (see Fig. 2; for all inferential statistics, see Table 3). These effects were qualified by a significant four-way interaction between size rank, material, visual status, and drawing order (see Table 3). To dissect this interaction, we conducted follow-up ANOVAs for each visual status (congenitally blind and adventitiously blind) separately, with the within-participant variables of size rank and material used and the between-participant variable of drawing order.
Among congenitally blind participants, the ANOVA yielded a main effect of material, F(1, 28) = 16.73, p < .001, ηp2 = .37 – because participants produced larger drawings on foil (M = 129.34, SE = 9.23) than paper (M = 108.77, SE = 8.73). The main effect of size rank was also significant, F(4.40, 123.13) = 32.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .53. This effect was best explained by the linear function, F(1, 28) = 99.44, p < .001, ηp2 = .78. The size of the drawing increased as the size rank value increased (see Fig. 2). The remaining main effects and interactions did not reach significance (all ps > .065).
The pattern of results was similar for the adventitiously blind group. The main effect of material was significant, F(1, 27) = 6.08, p = .020, ηp2 = .18 – due to larger drawings being produced on foil (M = 133.29, SE = 10.82) than on paper (M = 119.65, SE = 9.66). In addition, the main effect of size rank was also significant, F(4.87, 131.49) = 17.83, p < .001, ηp2 = .40 and best explained by a linear function F(1, 27) = 63.73, p < .001, ηp2 = .70. Adventitiously blind participants produced larger drawings with increasing size rank value (see Figure 2). The other effects were non-significant (all ps > .189).
Since one may argue that the paper condition is problematic from the ecological validity point of view, we calculated additional analysis only on foil data (see Appendix 2). These findings of the ANOVA are similar to those obtained for all data, i.e., we yielded a statistically significant size rank effect best described by the linear function for congenitally blind and adventitiously blind participants.
Discussion
In the current study, we investigated the canonical size phenomenon (Konkle & Oliva, 2011) in adventitiously and congenitally blind participants. Their task was to draw common objects (of eight different sizes in the real world) from memory in two conditions – on paper or foil for raised-line drawings.
In both groups of blind participants, we found a similar pattern of results, i.e., increasing drawn size for objects that have larger real-world sizes. Importantly, the main effect of size rank was best explained by a linear function. Previous studies have found the same pattern of results among sighted adult participants who performed the drawing task in the visual or haptic domains (Konkle & Oliva, 2011; Szubielska et al., 2022; Szubielska & Wojtasiński, 2021; Szubielska, Wojtasiński et al., 2020). That means that the size of the real-world objects is a property of the mental representations of adults with blindness, regardless of their visual status. This result may also suggest that object size is a defining property of mental representations of familiar objects and that knowledge of object size may be gained from different learning procedures, like direct sensory experience (not only visual but probably also haptic) or more abstract knowledge.
Moreover, this result suggests that blind adults, including those who are blind from birth, used rather allocentric reference frames when performing the task, which relate the drawn size of the particular object to the size of the frame determined by the surface of the sheet of paper/foil rather than body-centred reference frames. If the participants had used egocentric strategies based on their previous experience in tactile graphics, all drawings of objects would have been similar, approximately hand size. All of the congenitally blind participants had (at least rare) previous experience of using tactile graphics, and guidelines for depicting objects on tactile graphics recommend hand size (Edman, 1992). If, on the other hand, the participants had referred to their experience of touching actual objects, the shoe should fill almost the entire sheet of paper, while objects like a backpack and larger would go beyond the A4 size sheet. Nevertheless, the congenitally blind participants using sheets of paper/foil of this size produced drawings that generally were not larger than the hand but varied in size according to the objects’ sizes in the real world. Hence, our findings contrast reports from previous studies, which suggested that congenitally blind people prefer using egocentric reference frames (Pasqualotto et al., 2013; Pasqualotto & Proulx, 2012; Ruggiero et al., 2012, 2022; Toroj & Szubielska, 2011) and are in line with those which showed use of an allocentric reference frame in congenitally blind individuals (Chiesa et al., 2017; Martolini et al., 2021; Ottink et al., 2022; Schmidt et al., 2013).
The results obtained in the present study also provide evidence that people who are blind from birth can correctly estimate angular size when drawing (other paradigms of testing angular size representation revealed opposite results, Arditi et al., 1988; Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2005) and scale sizes (for similar findings in the task of the spatial scaling of maps, see Szubielska, Möhring, & Szewczyk, 2019a). Hence, our research also shows that people who are blind from birth do not ignore the size of the objects they imagine, as has been suggested in studies on mental majorization of abstract shapes (the process of majorization is defined as mental transformation requiring enlargement of the object of imagery representation) (Szubielska, 2015). However, perhaps there are differences between blind participants in representing the size in the case of real and abstract objects. Intriguingly, we found the canonical size phenomenon in participants with congenital blindness even though only half of them declared some drawing experience and that their drawings were hardly recognisable (see Fig. 1). This may mean that angular size is represented more accurately in the congenitally blind person’s mind than the two-dimensional shape of three-dimensional objects.
The results also revealed that both congenitally and adventitiously blind participants produced larger drawings on foil than paper. Previous research, in which the type of material (film vs. paper) was manipulated, did not reveal a similar finding (Szubielska et al., 2022). This may mean that the ability to have perceptual control during the drawing process is vital for the size of the drawing. Smaller drawings are created when perceptual feedback (haptic or visual – in Szubielska et al.’s (2022) study, sighted participants produced larger drawings in the visual than blindfolded condition) is limited.
In addition to revealing that blind people represent the size of familiar objects in imagery, our research also brings novel findings on the nature of the phenomenon of canonical size. This phenomenon was initially claimed to be visual due to being tested in the visual domain and linked to visual perception (Konkle & Oliva, 2011, see also Chen et al., 2022; Konkle & Oliva, 2012b). However, in this study, we found a canonical size effect in participants with congenital blindness who cannot use visual representations at all (Blanco & Travieso, 2003; Likova, 2012; Picard et al., 2010; Szubielska, 2014; Vanlierde & Wanet-Defalque, 2004). Therefore, our study negates the assumption of the phenomenon’s purely visual nature.
Consequently, it can be argued that the canonical size phenomenon itself is spatial, not visual. This conclusion is in line with the concept of a supramodal spatial system and an amodal spatial function (e.g., Cattaneo et al., 2008; Likova, 2012; Ricciardi et al., 2014; Wolbers et al., 2011). Furthermore, our findings support the concept of functional equivalence of spatial representations from touch and vision (Giudice et al., 2011; Ottink et al., 2021) in the sense that touch, in a similar way to vision, allows the acquisition and use of implicit knowledge of the sizes of everyday objects.
Limitations
We consider the main limitation of our study to be that the canonical size effect was tested using only one task – drawing from memory. To further confirm and generalise the amodal character of the canonical size phenomenon, it would be helpful to investigate it among congenitally blind participants performing other tasks – the imagery and perceptual tasks used by Konkle and Oliva (2011) – but adapted to the haptic domain.
Another limitation is that a floor lamp (which refers to size rank 6) might have been more challenging to draw by blind participants than the other objects considered in this study. Although lamps seem useless for blind people in everyday life, at the same time, none of the participants mentioned to us that they did not know what such a lamp is or looked like. Moreover, the participants were not instructed to draw a lamp when switched on, and the spatial properties of a lamp (shape, size) can be learned as much through sight as through touch. However, for better control of familiarity, this variable might have been measured by asking the participants to rate familiarity with an object drawn in the study after the drawing phase – concerning the floor lamp and all other objects included in the study.
One may also consider the lack of the ecological validity of the paper condition as a limitation. On the one hand, perceptual control in this condition is minimal (since haptic feedback is unavailable, but proprioceptive information still is available – for a discussion, see Szubielska et al., 2022). On the other hand, similar procedures (i.e., drawing without haptic feedback) were adopted in other studies on drawing among blind participants (e.g., Likova, 2012), and one of the participants in our study spontaneously declared that she often drew on paper for her child. In addition, and most importantly, the analysis performed excluding the data collected in the paper condition yielded similar results to the analysis performed on all the data. Notably, the canonical size effect was confirmed in both analyses.
Conclusions
Our quantitative study on the drawn size of familiar objects drawn from memory has shown that size is a feature of mental representations of real-world objects among blind people, including those with congenital blindness. More precisely, our findings suggest that late and congenitally blind people mentally represent objects as larger when they have larger actual physical sizes. From a theoretical perspective, our study contributes to correcting the ocular-centric bias underpinning conclusions about the visual nature of the canonical size phenomenon. The findings obtained among congenitally blind participants allow us to assume that the nature of this phenomenon is spatial, not visual.
Notes
Although there are opinions in the literature that the imagery of blind people (including those with congenital blindness) is vision-like (e.g., Renzi et al., 2013) or that their memory representations are visuo-spatial (Cattaneo et al., 2008), the metaphor of the mind’s hand (Blanco & Travieso, 2003; Szubielska, 2021) seems more accurate in this case than the mind’s eye metaphor.
References
Amedi, A., Merabet, L. B., Camprodon, J., Bermpohl, F., Fox, S., Ronen, I., Kim, D. S., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2008). Neural and behavioral correlates of drawing in an early blind painter: A case study. Brain Research, 1242, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.088
Arditi, A., Holtzman, J. D., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1988). Mental imagery and sensory experience in congenital blindness. Neuropsychologia, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(88)90026-7
Blanco, F., & Travieso, D. (2003). Haptic exploration and mental estimation of distances on a fictitious island: From mind’s eye to mind’s hand. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97(5), 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0309700505
Cacciamani, L., & Likova, L. T. (2017). Memory-guided drawing training increases granger causal influences from the perirhinal cortex to V1 in the blind. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 141, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2017.03.013
Carboni, S., Kennedy, J. M., & Wnuczko, M. (2021). Parallel and sideways inverse perspective drawing of a cube top: By an adult who is blind. British Journal of Visual Impairment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196211009934
Cattaneo, Z., Vecchi, T., Cornoldi, C., Mammarella, I., Bonino, D., Ricciardi, E., & Pietrini, P. (2008). Imagery and spatial processes in blindness and visual impairment. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(8), 1346–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.05.002
Chen, Y. C., Deza, A., & Konkle, T. (2022). How big should this object be? Perceptual influences on viewing-size preferences. Cognition, 225, 105114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105114
Chiesa, S., Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., & Cornoldi, C. (2017). Allocentric and contra-aligned spatial representations of a town environment in blind people. Acta Psychologica, 180, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.08.001
D’Angiulli, A., & Maggi, S. (2003). Development of drawing abilities in a distinct population: Depiction of perceptual principles by three children with congenital total blindness. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000191
D’Angiulli, A., Kennedy, J. M., & Heller, M. A. (1998). Blind children recognizing tactile pictures respond like sighted children given guidance in exploration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.393077
Eardley, A. F., & Pring, L. (2007). Spatial processing, mental imagery, and creativity in individuals with and without sight. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440600591965
Edman, P. K. (1992). Tactile graphics. AFB Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Freeman, N. H., & Cox, M. V. (Eds.). (1985). Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation. Cambridge University Press.
Giudice, N. A., Betty, M. R., & Loomis, J. M. (2011). Functional equivalence of spatial images from touch and vision: Evidence from spatial updating in blind and sighted individuals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022331
Heller, M. A. (1989). Picture and pattern perception in the sighted and the blind: The advantage of the late blind. Perception, 18(3), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1068/p180379
Heller, M. A., Calcaterra, J. A., Burson, L. L., & Tyler, L. A. (1996). Tactual picture identification by blind and sighted people: Effects of providing categorical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(2), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211884
Heller, M. A., Kennedy, J. M., Clark, A., McCarthy, M., Borgert, A., Wemple, L., Fulkerson, E., Kaffel, N., Duncan, A., & Riddle, T. (2006). Viewpoint and orientation influence picture recognition in the blind. Perception, 35(10), 1397–1420. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5460
I, B., & Shiu, C.-J. (2010). Examining explanations for differences in two-dimensional graphic spatial representation of cubes among totally blind subjects. Visual Arts Research, 36(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/var.2010.0007
Iachini, T., & Ruggiero, G. (2010). The role of visual experience in mental scanning of actual pathways: Evidence from blind and sighted people. Perception, 39(7), 953–969. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6457
Jolley, R. P. (2010). Children and pictures: Drawing and understanding. Wiley-Blackwell.
Kennedy, J. M. (1993). Drawing and the blind: Pictures to touch. Yale University Press.
Kennedy, J. M. (2003). Drawings from Gaia, a blind girl. Perception, 32(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3436
Kennedy, J. M. (2008). Metaphoric pictures devised by an early-blind adult on her own initiative. Perception, 37(11), 1720–1728. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5818
Kennedy, J. M. (2009). Outline, mental states, and drawings by a blind woman. Perception, 38(10), 1481–1496. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6407
Kennedy, J. M. (2013). Tactile drawings, ethics, and a sanctuary: Metaphoric devices invented by a blind woman. Perception, 42(6), 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7480
Kennedy, J. M. (2014a). Esthetics, “Aida” and “re-entry shock:” fountains in a blind woman’s drawings. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7(3), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2014.049
Kennedy, J. M. (2014b). Tactile drawing aesthetics and a blind woman’s drawings of sounds. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 32(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613512838
Kennedy, J. M., & Bai, J. (2002). Haptic pictures: Fit judgments predict identification, recognition memory, and confidence. Perception, 31(8), 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3259
Kennedy, J. M., & Juricevic, I. (2003). Haptics and projection: Drawings by Tracy, a blind adult. Perception, 32(9), 1059–1071. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3425
Kennedy, J. M., & Juricevic, I. (2006a). Blind man draws using diminution in three dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193877
Kennedy, J. M., & Juricevic, I. (2006b). Foreshortening, convergence and drawings from a blind adult. Perception, 35(6), 847–851. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5316
Kennedy, J. M., & Juricevic, I. (2008). Drawings by a blind adult: Orthogonals, parallels and convergence in two directions without T-junctions. In C. Lange-Küttner & A. Vintner (Eds.), Drawing and the non-verbal mind: A life-span perspective (pp. 305–324). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489730.015
Kennedy, J. M., & Merkas, C. E. (2000). Depictions of motion devised by a blind person. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(4), 700–706. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213009
Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2011). Canonical visual size for real-world objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020413
Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012a). A familiar-size Stroop effect: Real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028294
Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012b). A real-world size organization of object responses in occipitotemporal cortex. Neuron, 74(6), 1114–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.036
Lederman, S. J., Klatzky, R. L., Chataway, C., & Summers, C. D. (1990). Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of two-dimensional pictures of common objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 47(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208164
Likova, L. T. (2012). Drawing enhances cross-modal memory plasticity in the human brain: A case study in a totally blind adult. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00044
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., & Giudice, N. A. (2013). Representing 3D space in working memory: Spatial images from vision, hearing, touch, and language. In S. Lacey & R. Lawson (Eds.), Multisensory imagery (pp. 131–155). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5879-1_8
Luquet, G. H. (2001). Children’s drawings (a. Costall, trans.). Free association books (Original work published 1927).
Magee, L. E., & Kennedy, J. M. (1980). Exploring pictures tactually. Nature, 283, 287–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/283287a0
Marmor, G. S., & Zaback, L. A. (1976). Mental rotation by the blind: Does mental rotation depend on visual imagery? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.515
Martolini, C., Cappagli, G., Saligari, E., Gori, M., & Signorini, S. (2021). Allocentric spatial perception through vision and touch in sighted and blind children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210, 105195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105195
Mascle, C., Jouffrais, C., Kaminski, G., & Bara, F. (2022). Displaying easily recognizable tactile pictures: A comparison of three illustration techniques with blind and sighted children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 78, Article 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101364.
Millar, S. (1975). Visual experience or translation rules? Drawing the human figure by blind and sighted children. Perception, 4(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1068/p040363
Ostad, S. A. (1989). Mathematics through the fingertips – Basic mathematics for the blind pupil: Development and empirical testing of tactile representations. Norwegian Institute of Special Education.
Ottink, L., Buimer, H., van Raalte, B., Doeller, C. F., van der Geest, T. M., & van Wezel, R. J. A. (2022). Cognitive map formation supported by auditory, haptic, and multimodal information in persons with blindness. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 140, 104797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104797
Ottink, L., Hoogendonk, M., Doeller, C. F., Van der Geest, T. M., & Van Wezel, R. J. A. (2021). Cognitive map formation through haptic and visual exploration of tactile city-like maps. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 15254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94778-1
Pantelides, S. N., Kelly, J. W., & Avraamides, M. N. (2016). Integration of spatial information across vision and language. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1102144
Pasqualotto, A., & Proulx, M. J. (2012). The role of visual experience for the neural basis of spatial cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.01.008
Pasqualotto, A., Spiller, M. J., Jansari, A. S., & Proulx, M. J. (2013). Visual experience facilitates allocentric spatial representation. Behavioural Brain Research, 236(1), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.08.042
Pathak, K., & Pring, L. (1989). Tactual picture recognition in congenitally blind and sighted children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350030405
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. Harcourt.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. Routledge & K.
Picard, D., Lebaz, S., Jouffrais, C., & Monnier, C. (2010). Haptic recognition of two-dimensional raised-line patterns by early blind, late blind and blindfolded sighted adults. Perception, 39(2), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6527
Picard, D., & Lebaz, S. (2012). Identifying raised-line drawings by touch: A hard but not impossible task. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(7), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600705
Picard, D., Albaret, J.-M., & Mazella, A. (2013). Haptic identification of raised-line drawings by children, adolescents and yound adults: An age-related skill. Haptics-e, 5, 2.
Picard, D., Albaret, J.-M., & Mazella, A. (2014). Haptic identification of raised-line drawings when categorical information is given: A comparison between visually impaired and sighted children. Psicológica, 35(2), 277–290.
Renzi, C., Cattaneo, Z., Vecchi, T., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Mental imagery and blindness. In S. Lacey & R. Lawson (Eds.), Multisensory imagery (pp. 115–130). Springer.
Ricciardi, E., Bonino, D., Pellegrini, S., & Pietrini, P. (2014). Mind the blind brain to understand the sighted one! Is there a supramodal cortical functional architecture? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 41, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.006
Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., & Iachini, T. (2012). Egocentric/allocentric and coordinate/categorical haptic encoding in blind people. Cognitive Processing, 13(Suppl 1), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0504-6
Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., & Iachini, T. (2022). How ageing and blindness affect egocentric and allocentric spatial memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(9), 1628–1642. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211056772
Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Fantino, M., Mammarella, I. C., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Spatial representations in blind people: The role of strategies and mobility skills. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.010
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
Szubielska, M. (2014). Strategies for constructing spatial representations used by blind and sighted subjects. Studia Psychologica, 56(4), 273–285.
Szubielska, M. (2015). Mental majorization of figures tactilely explored by sighted and congenitally blind individuals. Roczniki Psychologiczne/Annals of Psychology, 18(1), 121–132.
Szubielska, M. (2021). A gdy umysł nie widzi? O pięknie wyobraźni osób niewidomych. [what about when the mind can't see? On the beauty of the imagery of people with blindness] in P. Fortuna & M. Szewczyk (Eds.), Piękno umysłów (pp. 157–177). Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL.
Szubielska, M., Augustynowicz, P., & Picard, D. (2022). Size and quality of drawings made by adults under visual and haptic control. Multisensory Research, 35, 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10078
Szubielska, M., Imbir, K., Fudali-Czyż, A., & Augustynowicz, P. (2020). How does knowledge about an artist’s disability change the aesthetic experience? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0292-z
Szubielska, M., Möhring, W., & Szewczyk, M. (2019a). Spatial scaling in congenitally blind and sighted individuals: Similarities and differences. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 31(4), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1624554
Szubielska, M., Niestorowicz, E., & Marek, B. (2016). Drawing without eyesight. Evidence from congenitally blind learners. Roczniki Psychologiczne/annals of. Psychology, 19(4), 681–700.
Szubielska, M., Niestorowicz, E., & Marek, B. (2019b). The relevance of object size to the recognisability of drawings by individuals with congenital blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19860015
Szubielska, M., & Wojtasiński, M. (2021). Canonical size in haptic drawings. Perception, 50(1), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006620983697
Szubielska, M., Wojtasiński, M., Biedroń, K., Bobel, M., & Chudziak, N. (2020). Canonical size for real-world objects in drawings performed under haptic control. Roczniki Psychologiczne/annals of. Psychology, 23(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych20232-5
Theurel, A., Witt, A., Claudet, P., Hatwell, Y., & Gentaz, E. (2013). Tactile picture recognition by early blind children: The effect of illustration technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 19(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034255
Toroj, M., & Szubielska, M. (2011). Prior visual experience, and perception and memory of shape in people with total blindness. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 29(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619610387554
Vanlierde, A., & Wanet-Defalque, M. C. (2004). Abilities and strategies of blind and sighted subjects in visuo-spatial imagery. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.03.001
Vanlierde, A., & Wanet-Defalque, M.-C. (2005). The role of visual experience in mental imagery. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0509900305
van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge University Press.
Vinter, A., Bonin, P., & Morgan, P. (2018). The severity of the visual impairment and practice matter for drawing ability in children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 78, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.027
Vinter, A., Fernandes, V., Orlandi, O., & Morgan, P. (2012). Exploratory procedures of tactile images in visually impaired and blindfolded sighted children: How they relate to their consequent performance in drawing. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(6), 1819–1831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.001
Vinter, A., Orlandi, O., & Morgan, P. (2020). Identification of textured tactile pictures in visually impaired and blindfolded sighted children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00345.
Wijntjes, M. W., van Lienen, T., Verstijnen, I. M., & Kappers, A. M. (2008). The influence of picture size on recognition and exploratory behaviour in raised-line drawings. Perception, 37(4), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5714
Wnuczko, M., & Kennedy, J. M. (2014). Pointing to azimuths and elevations of targets: Blind and blindfolded-sighted. Perception, 43(2–3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7605
Wolbers, T., Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., Wutte, M. G., & Giudice, N. A. (2011). Modality-independent coding of spatial layout in the human brain. Current Biology, 21(11), 984–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.04.038
Wu, C.-F., Wu, H.-P., Tu, Y.-H., & Yeh, I.-T. (2020). 3D pen tactile pictures generated by individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(5), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X20954759
Wu, C.-F., Wu, H.-P., Tu, Y.-H., Yeh, I.-T., & Chang, C.-T. (2022). Constituent elements affecting the recognition of tactile graphics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 116(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221092031
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
The current experiment was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and was approved by the ethics committee of the Institute of Psychology of The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study prior to data collection.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open practices statement
The data for the experiment are available at the Figshare repository (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Drawing_as_a_tool_for_investigating_the_nature_of_imagery_representations_of_blind_people_The_case_of_canonical_size_phenomenon/21714170). None of the materials for the experiments reported here is available. The experiment was not preregistered.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Additional analyses on drawing size exclusively considering the drawings produced on foils.
The ANOVA with the within-participant variables of size rank (1 – key vs. 2 – apple vs. 3 – shoe vs. 4 – backpack vs. 5 – dog vs. 6 – floor lamp vs. 7 – car vs. 8 – house) and the between-participant variables of participants’ visual status (congenitally blind vs. adventitiously blind) and order of drawing (on foil first vs. on paper first) showed a significant main effect of size rank, F(4.88, 268.58) = 33.33, p < .001, ηp2 = .38 – best explained by the linear function, F(1, 55) = 119.15, p < .001, ηp2 = .68, and a significant interaction between size rank and visual status, F(4.88, 268.58) = 2.64, p = .025, ηp2 = .05. The remaining main effects and interactions did not reach significance (all ps > .317). To dissect the interaction obtained, we calculated follow-up ANOVAs for each visual status (congenitally blind and adventitiously blind) separately with the within-participant variables of size rank. Among congenitally blind participants, the main effect of size rank was significant, F(4.59, 128.42) = 21.66, p < .001, ηp2 = .44, and best explained by the linear function, F(1, 28) = 83.96, p < .001, ηp2 = .75. Similarly, in the adventitiously blind group, the main effect of size rank was also significant, F(4.19, 113.02) = 14.83, p < .001, ηp2 = .35, and best explained by a linear function F(1, 27) = 43.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .62. In both groups of participants, the size of the drawing increased as the size rank value increased (see Table 2).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Szubielska, M., Kędziora, W., Augustynowicz, P. et al. Drawing as a tool for investigating the nature of imagery representations of blind people: The case of the canonical size phenomenon. Mem Cogn (2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01491-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01491-7