Xilin Zhang

Yanchao Bi

eLife Assessment
This important study uses an elegant visual-anagram approach to test whether perceived animacy shapes visual working memory and guides visual attention while tightly controlling for lower- and mid-level image properties. The evidence is convincing and provides a rigorous demonstration that perceived animacy influences visual cognition beyond the contribution of its typical visual correlates. The findings will be of broad interest to researchers studying high-level vision, attention, and working memory.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public review):
[Editors' note: this version has been assessed by the Reviewing Editor without further input from the original reviewers. The authors have addressed the comments raised in the previous round of review.]
This is a very cool paper that casts light on a persistent problem in the psychology and philosophy of visual representation: is there high-level perception? Every vision scientist agrees that low-level features such as shape, color, texture, motion and spatial frequency are represented in visual perception, but there is a great deal of controversy about the representation of high-level properties such as causation, faces, agency and animacy. Animacy is especially problematic because there are large differences in line curvature between stimuli that represent animate and inanimate items.
This article uses a novel approach-visual "anagrams" that are exactly the same image, except one is rotated 90 degrees relative to the other. They found persistent differences in visual processing between animate and inanimate stimuli. (Of course, the stimuli aren't animate-they represent animate items.). For example, there were processing differences between changes between animate and inanimate items (rabbit to boot) that were not present in rabbit to dog. They also showed such differences in two kinds of visual search tasks.
Of course, there are feature differences that exploit orientation. A classic example is the difference between a square and a diamond that is produced from the square by rotating it 45 degrees.
They addressed an aspect of this challenge having to do with some features using silhouettes. There was no search advantage for silhouetted stimuli.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors present a creative approach using visual anagrams matched on low-level image statistics to isolate animacy from low-level visual features and report consistent effects of animacy on visual working memory and attention.
Strengths:
(1) An important methodological advance in controlling low-level confounds that have historically complicated the study of animacy.
(2) The converging effects across multiple experiments, together with the pre-registered design, strengthen the reliability of the reported findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):
This study makes clever use of generative AI to create stimuli that are pixel-for-pixel identical but which have radically different meanings depending on their orientation, to investigate the perception of animacy while retaining control over low-level image features (so-called 'anagram' stimuli).
The authors present seven elegantly designed experiments in a commendably compact format.
Experiments 1 and 2 involved a working memory paradigm in which participants had to spot which of five objects in an array changed after a pause. Importantly, the changed object was an anagram stimulus that in one orientation matched the animacy/inanimacy of the changed object, and in the other orientation was the opposite (e.g., a rabbit is replaced by either a dog or a boot, where the dog and boot stimuli are actually identical, just rotated by 90 degrees). They found a difference in accuracy depending on whether the animacy of the objects matched.
Experiments 3 and 4 used a visual search task in which the participants had to localize the target, and the distractors were anagrams that either matched the target in terms of animacy or did not. There was a significant cost in terms of response time when the animacy of the target was the same as that of the distractors. Experiments 5 and 6 also used a similar visual search design, except that the task was to determine if the target was present or absent from the display, and the distractors again either matched or differed from the target in terms of animacy. Again, the authors found slower responses when the distractor arrays matched the animacy of the target than when they differed.
An obvious potential concern about the studies is addressed by Experiment 7. It is unclear if the observed effects are related to the specific orientations of the target and distractor stimuli selected in each condition. For example, it could be that all the animate versions of the anagrams involved tall and skinny shapes, while all the inanimate versions involved wide and short objects, due to the 90-degree rotational difference between the two versions of the stimuli. To control for this, the authors repeated the visual search experiment but with convex-hull silhouettes of each of the stimuli. In other words, all targets and distractors from each trial were replaced by a black splotch with approximately the same overall outline (envelope) as the corresponding stimulus. Importantly, in contrast to the anagram stimuli, the silhouettes had had no meaningful semantic interpretation, and their animacy did not change depending on their orientation.

Perceiving animacy in ‘identical’ images

Figures and data

Be the first to read new articles from eLife