# Affine Geometry, Visual Sensation, and Preference for Symmetry of Things in a Thing

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### 1.1. Affine Geometry and Visual Sensation

#### 1.2. Reflection and Rotational Shape Symmetry

**x**,

**y**,

**z**), is an important factor in visual recognition [22,23,24]. Reflection or mirror symmetry is detected quickly [25,26] in foveal and in peripheral vision [27]. Vertical mirror symmetry facilitates face recognition by human [28] and non-human primates [29], and is used by the human visual system as a second-order cue to perceptual grouping [30].

#### 1.3. Nature-Inspired Design and the Symmetry of “Things in a Thing”

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Subjects

#### 2.2. Stimuli

#### 2.3. Task Instructions

#### 2.4. Procedure

## 3. Results

_{left}= 4.92 vs. M

_{right}= 5.07), or the order (first vs. second) in which a judgment was formed in response to a figure pair (M

_{first}= 5.02 vs. M

_{second}= 4.95).

#### 3.1. Aesthetic Ratings

#### 3.2. Preference Judgments

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Amir, O.; Biederman, I.; Hayworth, K.J. Sensitivity to non-accidental properties across various shape dimensions. Vis. Res.
**2012**, 62, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Amir, O.; Biederman, I.; Herald, S.B.; Shah, M.P.; Mintz, T.H. Greater sensitivity to non-accidental than metric shape properties in preschool children. Vis. Res.
**2014**, 97, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Biederman, I. Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev.
**1987**, 94, 115–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wilson, H.R.; Wilkinson, F. Symmetry perception: A novel approach for biological shapes. Vis. Res.
**2002**, 42, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pizlo, Z.; Sawada, T.; Li, Y.; Kropatsch, W.G.; Steinman, R.M. New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume: A mini-review. Vis. Res.
**2010**, 50, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Li, Y.; Pizlo, Z.; Steinman, R.M. A computational model that recovers the 3D shape of an object from a single 2D retinal representation. Vis. Res.
**2009**, 49, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Li, Y.; Sawada, T.; Shi, Y.; Steinman, R.M.; Pizlo, Z. Symmetry is the sine qua non of shape. In Shape Perception in Human and Computer Vision; Dickinson, S., Pizlo, Z., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2013; pp. 21–40. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatelli, H.; Lawandow, A.; Kopra, A.R. Asymmetry, symmetry and beauty. Symmetry
**2010**, 2, 1591–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stevens, K.A. The visual interpretation of surface contours. Artif. Intell.
**1981**, 17, 47–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stevens, K.A. The information content of texture gradients. Biol. Cybern.
**1981**, 42, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Foley, J.M.; Ribeiro-Filho, N.P.; Da Silva, J.A. Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space. Vis. Res.
**2004**, 44, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp, B.; Silvestri, C.; Motro, R. Which geometric model for the perceived curvature of 2-D shape contours? Spat. Vis.
**2007**, 20, 219–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp-Langley, B. Why the brain knows more than we do: Non-conscious representations and their role in the construction of conscious experience. Brain Sci.
**2012**, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp-Langley, B. Generic properties of curvature sensing by vision and touch. Comput. Math. Methods Med.
**2013**, 2013, 634168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp-Langley, B. 2D geometry predicts perceived visual curvature in context-free viewing. Comput. Intell. Neurosci.
**2015**, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Strother, L.; Killebrew, K.W.; Caplovitz, G.P. The lemon illusion: Seeing curvature where there is none. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
**2015**, 9, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Groves, J.T. The physical chemistry of membrane curvature. Nat. Chem. Biol.
**2009**, 5, 783–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hatzakis, N.S.; Bhatia, V.K.; Larsen, J.; Madsen, K.L.; Bolinger, P.Y.; Kunding, A.H.; Castillo, J.; Gether, U.; Hedegård, P.; Stamou, D. How curved membranes recruit amphipathic helices and protein anchoring motifs. Nat. Chem. Biol.
**2009**, 5, 835–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Gerbino, W.; Zhang, L. Visual orientation and symmetry detection under affine transformations. Bull. Psychon. Soc.
**1991**, 29, 480. [Google Scholar] - Whitaker, D.; McGraw, P.W. Geometric representation of the mechanisms underlying human curvature detection. Vis. Res.
**1998**, 38, 3843–3848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bahnsen, P. Eine Untersuchung über Symmetrie und Asymmetrie bei visuellen Wahrnehmungen. Z. Psychol.
**1928**, 108, 129–154. [Google Scholar] - Braitenberg, V. Reading the structure of brains. Network
**1990**, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beck, D.M.; Pinsk, M.A.; Kastner, S. Symmetry perception in humans and macaques. Trends Cogn. Sci.
**2005**, 9, 405–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Tjan, B.S.; Liu, Z. Symmetry impedes symmetry discrimination. J. Vis.
**2005**, 5, 88–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barlow, H.B.; Reeves, B.C. The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vis. Res.
**1979**, 19, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wagemans, J.; Van Gool, L.; D’Ydewalle, G. Detection of symmetry in tachistoscopically presented dot patterns: Effects of multiple axes and skewing. Percept. Psychophys.
**1991**, 50, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barrett, B.T.; Whitaker, D.; McGraw, P.V.; Herbert, A.M. Discriminating mirror symmetry in foveal and extra-foveal vision. Vis. Res.
**1999**, 39, 3737–3744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thornhill, R.; Gangestad, S.W. Facial attractiveness. Trends Cognit. Sci.
**1999**, 3, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, J.R.; Kuwahata, H.; Kuroshima, F.; Leighty, K.A.; Fujita, K. Are monkeys aesthetists? Rensch (1957) revisited. J. Exp. Psychol.
**2005**, 31, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Machilsen, B.; Pauwels, M.; Wagemans, J. The role of vertical mirror symmetry in visual shape perception. J. Vis.
**2009**, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Silvestri, C.; Motro, R.; Maurin, B.; Dresp-Langley, B. Visual spatial learning of complex object morphologies through the interaction with virtual and real-world data. Des. Stud.
**2010**, 31, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Levin, S.M. Biotensegrity: The tensegrity truss as a model for spine mechanics. J. Mech. Med. Biol.
**2002**, 3–4, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mandelbrot, B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; Freeman & Co.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Lehrer, M.; Horridge, G.A.; Zhang, S.W.; Gadagkar, R. Shape vision in bees: Innate preference for flower-like patterns. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
**1995**, 347, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Giurfa, M.; Eichmann, B.; Menzl, R. Symmetry perception in an insect. Nature
**1996**, 382, 458–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Eisenman, R. Complexity–simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychon. Sci.
**1967**, 8, 169–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Berlyne, D.E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology; Appleton: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobsen, T.; Hofel, L. Aesthetics judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Percept. Motor Skills
**2002**, 95, 755–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jacobsen, T.; Hofel, L. Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes: Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics. Cognit. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.
**2003**, 3, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jacobsen, T.; Schubotz, R.I.; Hofel, L.; van Cramon, D.Y. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage
**2006**, 29, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Tinio, P.P.L.; Leder, H. Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychol.
**2009**, 130, 241–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Deregowski, J.B. Symmetry, Gestalt and information theory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.
**1971**, 23, 381–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Deregowski, J.B. The role of symmetry in pattern reproduction by Zambian children. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.
**1972**, 3, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kayaert, G.; Wagemans, J. Delayed shape matching benefits from simplicity and symmetry. Vis. Res.
**2009**, 49, 708–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Spehar, B.; Clifford, C.W.G.; Newell, B.; Taylor, R.P. Universal aesthetics of fractals. Comput. Graph.
**2003**, 27, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hagerhall, C.M.; Purcell, T.; Taylor, R. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. J. Environ. Psychol.
**2004**, 24, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Forsythe, A.; Nadal, M.; Sheehy, N.; Cela-Conde, C.J.; Sawey, M. Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. Br. J. Psychol.
**2011**, 102, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Dresp-Langley, B. Principles of perceptual grouping: implications for image-guided surgery. Front. Psychol.
**2015**, 6, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp, B. On illusory contours and their functional significance. Curr. Psychol. Cognit.
**1997**, 16, 489–518. [Google Scholar] - Samuel, F.; Kerzel, D. Judging whether it is aesthetic: Does equilibrium compensate for lack of symmetry? I-Perception
**2013**, 4, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Belke, B.; Leder, H.; Carbon, C.C. When challenging art gets liked: Evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE
**2015**, 10, e0131796. [Google Scholar] - Eisenman, R.; Rappaport, J. Complexity preference and semantic differential ratings of complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Psychon. Sci.
**1967**, 7, 147–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eisenman, R.; Gellens, H.K. Preference for complexity—Simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Percept. Motor Skills
**1968**, 26, 888–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Cook, R.; Furnham, A. Aesthetic preferences for architectural styles vary as a function of personality. Imagin. Cogn. Personal.
**2012**, 32, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Carbon, C.C. The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol.
**2010**, 134, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Carbon, C.C. Cognitive mechanisms for explaining dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. I-Perception
**2011**, 2, 708–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Grammer, K.; Thornhill, R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J. Comp. Psychol.
**1994**, 108, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dresp-Langley, B.; Grossberg, S. Neural computation of surface border ownership and relative surface depth from ambiguous contrast inputs. Front. Psychol.
**2016**, 7, 1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**Figure 1.**The importance of curve symmetry for human endeavour dates back to the dawn of building shelter and to vernacular architecture (

**left**). Similar geometry is currently used in contemporary free-form architecture (

**middle**), which has been much inspired by the Spanish architect Gaudi, who largely exploited symmetry for the design of the hall and archways of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona (

**right**).

**Figure 2.**Projective geometry permits generating symmetric curves from ellipses by affinity with concentric circles. Each such curve may be perceived as a single thing or as a multiple of one and the same thing in a complex shape or object, as shown here. This perception is grounded in biology in the sense that most natural objects can be represented as images of symmetrically curved shapes with the Euclidean properties of ellipses. Symmetric curves yield visual and tactile sensations of curvature which increase exponentially with the aspect ratio of the curves.

**Figure 3.**Fractal geometry and affine geometry share principles of projection in Euclidean space, as illustrated in this example here. Fractal trees, inspired by nature, may be defined as complex wholes where every part repeats itself across multiple fractal iterations, producing “symmetry of things in a thing”. In the 2D fractal mirror-tree shown here, concentric circles and affine projection are the mathematical basis for describing structural regularities with vertical reflection (mirror) symmetry, which has been identified as a major determinant of the visual attractiveness of image configurations.

**Figure 4.**Fifteen images of fractal mirror trees were designed using some of the principles of transformation shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The first five trees (

**top**) possess perfect “symmetry of things in a thing” across the vertical axis. In the next set of five (

**middle**), the smallest of fractal details is missing on the right. The remaining five trees (

**bottom**) are asymmetrical. It is noted that in these tree structures here, only the symmetrical ones (

**top**) appear perceptually complete.

**Figure 5.**30 image pairs with 20 presentations for figures of a given type (10 times on the left, and 10 times on the right). The image pairs were displayed in random order, and each pair was displayed twice in an individual session, yielding 60 preference judgments from each of the 30 subjects.

**Figure 6.**Average aesthetic ratings on a scale between zero and ten are shown as a function of the figure type.

**Table 1.**Results from the one-way repeated measures ANOVA on aesthetic ratings for each of the three figure types: Number of observations (N) per figure type, means (M) and standard errors (SEM), and the F value with probability limits (p) are given. Effect sizes, t values and the corresponding probability limits are given at the bottom.

One Way Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance AESTHETIC RATINGS | |||
---|---|---|---|

Treatment | N | M | SEM |

Symmetrical | 30 | 6.347 | 0.222 |

Detail missing | 30 | 4.487 | 0.258 |

Asymmetrical | 30 | 3.053 | 0.308 |

Source of Variation | DF | F | p |

Between Subjects | 29 | - | - |

Between Treatments | 2 | 64.323 | <0.001 |

Residual | 58 | - | - |

Total | 89 | - | - |

Comparison | dM | t | p |

Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical | 3.293 | 11.311 | <0.001 |

Symmetrical vs. Detail missing | 1.860 | 6.388 | <0.001 |

Detail missing vs. Asymmetrical | 1.433 | 4.923 | <0.001 |

**Table 2.**Results from the one-way ANOVA for repeated measures of preference judgments for each of the three figure types.

One Way Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance PREFERENCES | |||
---|---|---|---|

Treatment | N | M | SEM |

Symmetrical | 30 | 8.942 | 0.163 |

Detail missing | 30 | 4.542 | 0.094 |

Asymmetrical | 30 | 1.517 | 0.145 |

Source of Variation | DF | F | p |

Between Subjects | 29 | - | - |

Between Treatments | 2 | 195.399 | <0.001 |

Residual | 58 | - | - |

Total | 89 | - | - |

Comparison | dM | t | p |

Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical | 7.425 | 31.299 | <0.001 |

Symmetrical vs. Detail missing | 4.400 | 18.547 | <0.001 |

Detail missing vs. Asymmetrical | 3.025 | 12.751 | <0.001 |

© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Dresp-Langley, B.
Affine Geometry, Visual Sensation, and Preference for Symmetry of Things in a Thing. *Symmetry* **2016**, *8*, 127.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8110127

**AMA Style**

Dresp-Langley B.
Affine Geometry, Visual Sensation, and Preference for Symmetry of Things in a Thing. *Symmetry*. 2016; 8(11):127.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8110127

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Dresp-Langley, Birgitta.
2016. "Affine Geometry, Visual Sensation, and Preference for Symmetry of Things in a Thing" *Symmetry* 8, no. 11: 127.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8110127