Drawing Conclusions: An Exploration of the Cognitive and Neuroscientific Foundations of Representational Drawing Rebecca Susan Chamberlain Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology Thesis submitted to UCL for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2013 1 Declaration ‘I, Rebecca Susan Chamberlain confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.’ 2 Publications The work in this thesis gave rise to the following publications: Chamberlain, R., McManus, I. C., Riley. H., Rankin, Q., & Brunswick, N. (2013) Local processing enhancements in superior observational drawing are due to enhanced perceptual functioning, not weak central coherence. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66 (7), 1448-66. Chamberlain, R. (2012) Attitudes and Approaches to Observational Drawing in Contemporary Artistic Practice. Drawing Knowledge. TRACEY Drawing and Visualisation Research. Chamberlain, R., McManus, I. C., Riley. H., Rankin, Q., & Brunswick, N. (In Press) Cain’s House Revisited and Revived: Extending Theory and Methodology for Quantifying Drawing Accuracy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Art. 3 Acknowledgements My first thanks extend to my supervisor and mentor, Professor Chris McManus, for his infectious enthusiasm for research and for the countless words of wisdom (academic and non-academic) he has given me over the last six years. I would like to thank my collaborators at The Royal College of Art and Swansea Metropolitan University, Howard Riley and Qona Rankin, who have been so generous with their time, resources and thoughts on the artistic mind. This research also wouldn’t have been possible without the hundreds of art and design students who were willing to take time out of their hectic lives to participate in my studies and discuss their experiences and reflections with me. I wish to thank each one of them. I would like to thank both Professor Haggard and Professor Essi Viding for some exceptional pieces of advice at exactly the right times. Thanks also to Professor Francesca Happé and Dr Rhonda Booth for their insights into visual processing in autism, Dr Nicky Brunswick for her advice on the neuroimaging components of the thesis as well as on dyslexia and spelling ability, Ryota Kanai for making the voxel based morphometry study a reality, and Angela Brew for fruitful discussions on the nature of drawing and artistic ability over the years. Special thanks to Jens for his dedication to reading my thesis from beginning to end and his unfailing optimism that we would both finish! Thanks also to Leo for the drawings and to Phil, Tom, Cliodhna, Dave, Joss and Ollie for their constant support. My final thanks go to mum and dad for all their love and for being there whenever I needed. 4 Abstract The present thesis describes an exploration of cognitive, perceptual and neuroscientific foundations of representational drawing. To motivate experimental hypotheses, an initial qualitative study of artists’ attitudes and approaches to drawing was conducted. Themes from the qualitative data, predominantly concerning the relationship between perception and drawing, were developed into a large scale survey study of over 600 art students at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The survey study assessed the role of personality and demographic factors as well as perceptual styles and abilities, isolating the role of approaches to study, practice and technique use on externally-rated drawing ability. The qualitative and survey studies provided the foundation for further empirical work, the first of which was an exploration of the use of image manipulation and shape analysis for measuring the accuracy of drawings, with the intention of providing more reliable and valid dependent measures in the study of drawing. This investigation revealed differences in the way individuals judge the accuracy of drawings according to the stimuli they represent and presents a novel method for comparing aesthetic and accuracy judgments of drawing. The three experimental chapters of this thesis describe investigations into visual perception and memory in association with drawing in students of arts and non-arts subjects with an emphasis on angular/proportional perception, local-global visual processing and long and short-term visual memory. These studies revealed that individual differences in visual perception and visual long-term memory when rendering explain a large proportion of individual differences in drawing ability. The final empirical chapter reports a voxel-based morphometry study of structural neural correlates with individual differences in drawing and artistic ability. The results of this study emphasize the role of procedural memory and fine motor control in the development of long-term drawing expertise. The enquiry culminates in the presentation of a toolbox for drawing which includes visual, educational and motor modules. Its potential use in art and design education in teaching protocol is then discussed. The research findings could have a significant impact on the way in which art schools employ artistic training and could provide early diagnostic tools for identifying talent in the arts. 5 Table of Contents Chapter 1. State of the Art ............................................................................................... 17 1.1 The Primacy of Drawing ....................................................................................... 18 1.2 The Drawing Instinct ............................................................................................. 21 1.3 A Model of Drawing Ability ................................................................................. 23 1.4 The Role of Visual Perceptual Processing............................................................. 25 1.5 The Role of the Artistic Savant ............................................................................. 30 1.6 The Role of Visual Representations ...................................................................... 36 1.7 The Role of Hand-Eye Coordination ..................................................................... 42 1.8 Drawing and the Brain ........................................................................................... 45 1.9 Summary of Literature Review and Aims of the Thesis ....................................... 49 1.10 Thesis Framework ................................................................................................. 50 Chapter 2. Conversations with Artists: The Importance of Drawing .............................. 53 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 54 2.2 Qualitative Data Collection ................................................................................... 57 2.3 Thematic Exploration of Qualitative Data ............................................................. 59 2.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 64 Chapter 3. Covariates of Drawing Ability: Personality and Demographic Factors ........ 69 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 70 3.2 Method ................................................................................................................... 75 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................... 80 3.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 99 3.5 Interim Conclusions ............................................................................................. 107 Chapter 4. Quantifying Drawing Accuracy ................................................................... 111 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 112 4.2 Method ................................................................................................................. 120 4.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 122 4.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 132 6 4.5 Interim Conclusions ............................................................................................. 138 Chapter 5. Perception of Simple Shape Properties........................................................ 140 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 141 5.2 Method ................................................................................................................. 145 5.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 148 5.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 150 5.5 Interim Conclusions from Perceptual Studies. .................................................... 154 Chapter 6. Local and Global Visual Processing ............................................................ 156 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................