Effects of Object Facing Direction and Implied Motion on Preferences for Spatial Composition
Thomas A. Langlois, Jonathan Sammartino, & Stephen E. Palmer
Psychology Department, University of California, Berkeley
Methods: The Drag-and-Drop Task
Background
The “inward bias” in aesthetic preferences (Palmer, Gardner & Wickens, 2008;
Results (Continued)
Drag the figure into the background, then Drop (and click) at the best position
Implied Motion: Speed (Car results)
Bertamini, Bennett & Bode, 2011)
Left Facing
40
20
0
Right Facing
1
2
3
4
Position
5
6
Left Facing objects preferred
right of center.
implied motion
No significant differences were detected between objects with implied motion vs. objects that were merely facing.
Implied Motion Direction
1 2 3 4
“In this experiment, you will see images of human figures, horses and cars.
Your task will be to move these images into a background image frame, and
place them in the location that is most aesthetically pleasing.”
Facing Left
5
6 7
The position of the object was defined as the center of its bounding
box and was categorized into 7 bins.
20
15
Right Facing
10
5
Left Facing
25
20
15
10
Right Facing
5
3
4
5
Positions
6
1
7
25
20
Left Facing
15
10
Right Facing
5
2
3
4
5
Positions
6
7
20
15
Left Facing
10
Right Facing
5
0
0
0
2
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
Positions
3
4
5
6
7
Positions
Facing effects are consistent with the inward bias at all speeds (p < .001).
Smaller inward bias for faster cars (p < .001), as if people are including a
displacement in the direction of motion over a fixed interval of time.
Examples w/ background
Discussion
Implied Motion: Direction
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
80
Forward
Diver
Backward
Diver
1
2
3
4
5
The results replicated our previous findings demonstrating an inward bias in
people’s preferences for the position of right and left facing objects, but they also
showed strong effects due to object in implied motion.
Right Facing Divers
Left Facing Divers
Moving
Right
6
Forward
Diver
70
60
1) Backward divers were preferred moving inward and facing outward, but they
were placed closer to the center than forward divers.
Backward
Diver
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
Moving
Left
8 images per set X 2 diving directions X 2 facing directions = 32 images
1
2
3
4
Positions
5
6
7
Fast
Humans
Motion Bias
Incongruent Facing and Motion Effects
2) Implied speed produced opposite effects: faster objects showing a smaller
inward bias, as though displaced farther along the direction of motion.
Speed Bias
Facing Bias
More inward bias
-150
Left Side
-100
-50
0
50
Center
100
150
Right Side
Horizontal Position (Pixels)
Facing effects are consistent with the inward bias (p < .001).
The inward bias decreases as object speed increases (p < .001), opposite our hypothesis.
(1 of 3 sets)
3 object types (humans, horses, cars) X 3 stimulus sets/type X 4 speeds X 2 facing directions = 72 images
Large speed displacement effect:
Greater reduction of inward bias
References and Acknowledgments
Motionless
Cars
Facing Bias
Right
Facing
Slow
(1 of 3 sets)
Fast Horse
Speed Bias
Small speed displacement effect:
Slight reduction of inward bias
Medium
Horses
Congruent Facing and Motion Effects
Less inward bias
Fast
(1 of 3 sets)
Motion Bias
Slow Horse
Average Position of the Centers of all Objects
Examples w/ background
Facing Bias
Facing Bias
Implied Motion: Speed
Implied Motion Speed (right-facing examples only)
Forward Divers
Backward Divers
Strong inward bias for forward divers (p < .001); see solid lines in graphs.
When motion and facing conflict (backward divers):
Motion is more salient (p < .001); compare dotted and solid lines in graphs.
The inward bias due to motion is weaker (p < .001).
Medium
25
30
Results
Positions
Slow
Left Facing
1
Frequency Chosen
Stimuli
Motionless
30
30
Fast
merely facing
Research Question:
Would images of objects in motion reveal differences in the inward bias?
Hypotheses:
1) Facing and motion directions would interact when they were inconsistent.
2) A greater inward bias for faster objects when compared to static objects.
Facing Right
35
0
Experimental instructions:
7
35
Medium
Frequency Chosen
60
Slow
Frequency Chosen
80
Frequency Chosen
Right facing objects preferred
left of center.
Frequency Chosen
Percent Chosen
100
40
Frequency Chosen
Same-Facing Comparisons
Motionless
Palmer, S. E., Gardner, J, S. & Wickens, T. D. (2008). Aesthetic Issues in Spatial Composition: Effects of Position and Direction on Framing
Single Objects. Spatial Vision, 21, 421, 449.
Bertamini, M., Bennett, K. M., Bode, C. (2011). The Anterior Bias in Visual Art: The Case of Images of Animals. Laterality. Asymmetries of
Brain, Body and Cognition, 6, 673-689.
We thank Karen Schloss, Kelly Whiteford, Stephen Guo, Katie Cheng,Vishruth Venkat and the other members of PalmerLab at UC
Berkeley for their help with this project.
This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants Nos. 1059088 and 0745820, and by a Google
Gift to the senior author. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or Google Inc.