Depictions of motion devised by a blind person

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 700-706

  Kennedy, John M ^a   Merkas, Cynthia E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ART; ARTICLE; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MALE; MOTION; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PATIENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; TIME PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ART; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; METAPHOR; MOTION; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; TIME PERCEPTION; VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS;

EID: 0034569096     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03213009     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. ARNHEIM, R. A. (1974). Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. CHIAPPE, D. (1998). Similarity, relevance and the comparison process. Metaphor & Symbol, 13, 17-30.
3. 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, 187-190.
4. ERIKSSON, Y. (1998). Tactile pictures: Pictorial representations for the blind. 1784-1940. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.
5. FRIEDMAN, S. L., & STEVENSON, M. B. (1980). Perception of movement in pictures. In M. A. Hagen (Ed.), The perception of pictures (Vol. 1, pp. 225-255). New York: Academic Press.
6. GIBBS, R. W., & GERRIG, R. J. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem special. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity, 3, 145-158.
7. GIORA, R., FEIN, O., & SCHWARTZ, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor & Symbol, 13, 83-102.
8. HELLER, M. A. (1989). Picture and pattern perception in the sighted and the blind. Perception, 18, 379-389.
9. HELLER, M. A., & KENNEDY, J. M. (1990). Perspective taking, pictures, and the blind. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 459-466.
10. HOLMES, E., HUGHES, B., & JANSSON, G. (1998). Haptic perception of tactual gradients. Perception, 27, 993-1008.
11. KENNEDY, J. M. (1993). Drawing and the blind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. KENNEDY, J. M. (1997, January). How the blind draw. Scientific American, 276, 60-65.
13. KENNEDY, J. M., & GABIAS, P. (1985). Metaphoric devices in drawings of motion mean the same to the blind and the sighted Perception, 14, 189-195.
14. KENNEDY, J. M., GREEN, C. D., & VERVAEKE, J. (1993). Metaphoric thought and devices in pictures. Metatphor & Symbolic Activity, 8, 243-255.
15. KIM, H., & FRANCIS, G. (1998). A computational and perceptual account of motion lines. Perception, 27, 785-797.
16. LAKOFF, G., & JOHNSON, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. MILLAR, S. (1991). A reversed lag in the recognition and production of tactual drawings: Theoretical implications for haptic coding. In M. A. Heller & W. Schiff (Eds.), The psychology of touch (pp 301-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. MILLAR, S. (1994). Understanding and representing space: Theory and evidence from studies with the blind and sighted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. MILLAR, S. (1997). Reading by touch. London: Routledge.
20. ROSENBLUM, L., SALDANA, H., & CARELLO, C. (1993). Dynamical constraints on pictorial action lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 381-396.
21. RUNESON, S., & FRYKHOLM, G. (1981). Visual perception of lifted weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7, 733-740.
22. SPERBER, D., & WILSON, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.