The aesthetic appeal of minimal structures: Judging the attractiveness of solutions to traveling salesperson problems

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 32-42

  Vickers, Douglas ^a   Lee, Michael D ^a   Dry, Matthew ^a   Hughes, Peter ^a   McMahon, Jennifer A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; DECISION MAKING; ESTHETICS; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; TRAVEL; VISION;

ATTITUDE; COMMERCE; ESTHETICS; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; TRAVEL; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33646439015     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193653     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ATTNEAVE, F. (1982). Prägnanz and soap bubble systems: A theoretical exploration. In J. Beck (Ed.), Organization and representation in perception (pp. 11-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. BERLYNE, D. E. (1974). Novelty, complexity, and interestingness. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 175-180). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
3. BERTAMINI, M., & CROUCHER, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87, 33-54.
4. CHI, M. T. H., GLASER, R., & FARR, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. COOPER, L. A. (1976). Individual differences in visual comparison processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 433-444.
6. DUNCAN, C. P. (1959). Recent research on human problem solving. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 397-429.
7. ESTES, W. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 134-140.
8. ESTES, W. K., & MADDOX, W. T. (2005). Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 403-408.
9. FLOOD, M. M. (1956). The traveling salesman problem. Operations Research, 4, 61-75.
10. GIGNAC, G. E., STOUGH, C., & LOUKOMITIS, S. (2004). Openness, intelligence, and self-report intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 133-143.
11. GRAHAM, S. M., JOSHI, A., & PIZLO, Z. (2000). The traveling salesman problem: A hierarchical model. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1191-1204.
12. HILDEBRANDT, S., & TROMBA, A. (1996). The parsimonious universe: Shape and form in the natural world. New York: Springer.
13. HOGEBOOM, M., & VAN LEEUWEN, C. (1997). Visual search strategy and perceptual organization covary with individual preference and structural complexity. Acta Psychologica, 95, 141-164.
14. JACOBSEN, T. (2004). Individual and group modelling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41-56.
15. JUST, M. A., & CARPENTER, P. A. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92, 137-192.
16. KANIZSA, G., & GERBINO, W. (1976). Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In M. Henle (Ed.), Vision and artifact (pp. 25-32). New York: Springer.
17. LAWLER, E. L., LENSTRA, J. K., RINNOOY KAN, A. H. G., & SHMOYS, D. B. (1985). The traveling salesman problem: A guided tour of combinatorial optimization. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
18. LEE, M. D., & VICKERS, D. (2000). The importance of the convex hull for human performance on the traveling salesman problem: A comment on MacGregor and Ormerod (1996). Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 226-228.
19. LEE, M. D., & WEBB, M. R. (2005). Modeling individual differences in cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 605-621.
20. LIU, Z., JACOBS, D. W., & BASRI, R. (1999). The role of convexity in perceptual completion: Beyond good continuation. Vision Research, 39, 4244-4257.
21. MACGREGOR, J. N., CHRONICLE, E. P., & ORMEROD, T. C. (2004). Convex hull or crossing avoidance? Solution heuristics in the traveling salesperson problem. Memory & Cognition, 32, 260-270.
22. MACGREGOR, J. N., & ORMEROD, T. [C.] (1996). Human performance on the traveling salesman problem. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 527-539.
23. MACGREGOR, J. N., & ORMEROD, T. C. (2000). Evaluating the importance of the convex hull in solving the Euclidean version of the traveling salesperson problem: Reply to Lee and Vickers (2000). Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1501-1503.
24. MACGREGOR, J. N., ORMEROD, T. C., & CHRONICLE, E. P. (1999). Spatial and contextual factors in human performance on the travelling salesperson problem. Perception, 28, 1417-1427.
25. MACGREGOR, J. N., ORMEROD, T. C., & CHRONICLE, E. P. (2000). A model of human performance on the traveling salesperson problem. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1183-1190.
26. MANDELBROT, B. B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.
27. MARKOVIĆ, S., & GVOZDENOVIĆ, V. (2001). Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy: Effects of minimum and maximum simplicity conditions. Visual Cognition, 8, 305-327.
28. METZGER, F. (1953). Gesetze des Sehens. Frankfurt-am-Main: Waldemar Kramer.
29. MOWATT, M. H. (1940). Configurational properties considered "good" by naive subjects. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 46-69.
30. OLIVERS, C. N. L., CHATER, N., & WATSON, D. G. (2004). Holography does not account for goodness: A critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996). Psychological Review, 111, 242-260.
31. ORMEROD, T. C., & CHRONICLE, E. P. (1999). Global perceptual processing in problem solving: The case of the traveling salesperson. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1227-1238.
32. O'ROURKE, J. (1993). Computational geometry in C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. POLIVANOVA, N. I. (1974). [Functional and structural aspects of the visual components of intuition in problem solving]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4, 41-51.
34. QUINTAS, L. V., & SUPNICK, F. (1965). On some properties of shortest Hamiltonian circuits. American Mathematical Monthly, 72, 977-980.
35. REINELT, G. (1994). The traveling salesman: Computational solutions for TSP applications (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 840). Berlin: Springer.
36. SELKIRK, K. E. (1982). Pattern and place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. STEIN, D. L. (1989). Spin glasses. Scientific American, 261, 36-42.
38. STREIBEL, M. J., & EBENHOLTZ, S. M. (1982). Construct validity of perceptual style: Role of stimulus size in the embedded-figures test and the rod-and-frame test. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 128-138.
39. VAN DER HELM, P. A., & LEEUWENBERG, E. L. J. (2004). Holographic goodness is not that bad: Reply to Olivers, Chater, and Watson (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 261-273.
40. VICKERS, D., BOVET, P., LEE, M. D., & HUGHES, P. (2003). The perception of minimal structures: Performance on open and closed versions of visually presented Euclidean traveling salesperson problems. Perception, 32, 871-886.
41. VICKERS, D., BUTAVICIUS, M., LEE, M. D., & MEDVEDEV, A. (2001). Human performance on visually presented traveling salesman problems. Psychological Research, 65, 34-45.
42. VICKERS, D., LEE, M. D., DRY, M., & HUGHES, P. (2003). The roles of the convex hull and the number of potential intersections in performance on visually presented traveling salesperson problems. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1094-1104.
43. VICKERS, D., MAYO, T., HEITMANN, M., LEE, M. D., & HUGHES, P. (2004). Intelligence and individual differences in performance on three types of visually presented optimization problems. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 1059-1071.
44. ZUNIC, J., & ROSIN, P. L. (2004). A new convexity measure for polygons. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 26, 923-934.