Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:40:26.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual style: Qualitative and context-dependent categorization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2006

JULIE JUPP  and
JOHN S. GERO
JULIE JUPP
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
JOHN S. GERO
Affiliation:
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, School of Architecture, Design Science and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Style is an ordering principle by which to structure artifacts in a design domain. The application of a visual order entails some explicit grouping property that is both cognitively plausible and contextually dependent. Central to cognitive–contextual notions are the type of representation used in analysis and the flexibility to allow semantic interpretation. We present a model of visual style based on the concept of similarity as a qualitative context-dependent categorization. The two core components of the model are semantic feature extraction and self-organizing maps (SOMs). The model proposes a method of categorizing two-dimensional unannotated design diagrams using both low-level geometric and high-level semantic features that are automatically derived from the pictorial content of the design. The operation of the initial model, called Q-SOM, is then extended to include relevance feedback (Q-SOM:RF). The extended model can be seen as a series of sequential processing stages, in which qualitative encoding and feature extraction are followed by iterative recategorization. Categorization is achieved using an unsupervised SOM, and contextual dependencies are integrated via cluster relevance determined by the observer's feedback. The following stages are presented: initial per feature detection and extraction, selection of feature sets corresponding to different spatial ontologies, unsupervised categorization of design diagrams based on appropriate feature subsets, and integration of design context via relevance feedback. From our experiments we compare different outcomes from consecutive stages of the model. The results show that the model provides a cognitively plausible and context-dependent method for characterizing visual style in design.

Keywords

Design ContextQualitative Spatial RepresentationRelevance FeedbackSimilarity
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 247 - 266
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, J.S. (1967). A theory of style. In Aesthetic Inquiry: Essays on Art Criticism and the Philosophy of Art (Beardsley & M.C., Schueller, H.M., Eds.), pp. 54–66. Belmont, CA: Dickenson.
Ahmad, K. & Vrusias, B. (2004). Learning to visualise high-dimensional data. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Information Retrieval.
Allen, J.F. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23(1), 123–154.Google Scholar
Brown, K., Sims, N., Williams, J.H., & McMahon, C.A. (1995). Conceptual geometric reasoning by the manipulation of models based on prototypes. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 9(5), 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, K. (2004). Creature double feature: on style and subject in the art of caricature. AAAI Fall Symp. Style and Meaning in Language, Art, Music, and Design. Washington, DC: AAAI Press.
Cohn, A.G. (1997). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning techniques. Proc. KI-97 (Brewka, G., Habel, C. & Nebel, B., Eds.), pp. 1–30. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Colagrossi, A., Sciarrone, F., & Seccaroni, C.A. (2003). Methodology for automating the classification of works of art using neural networks. Leonardo, 36(1), 69–96.Google Scholar
Cox, I.J., Miller, M.L., Omohundro, S.M., & Yianilos, P.N. (1999). Target testing and the PicHunter Baysian multimedia retrieval system. Proc. 3rd Forum on Research Technology Advances in Digital Libraries, pp. 66–75, Washington, DC.
Davies, J. & Goel, A.K. (2001). Visual analogy in problem solving. Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 37–382. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Ding, L. & Gero, J.S. (1998). Emerging representations of Chinese traditional architectural style using genetic engineering. Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering (Huang, X., Yang, S. & Wu, H., Eds.), pp. 493–498. Wuhan, China: HUST Press.
Downton, M. & Brennan, T. (1980). Comparing classifications: an evaluation of several coefficients of partition agreement. Proc. Meeting of the Classification Society, Boulder, CO.
Edwards, A.T. (1945). Style and Composition in Architecture. London: John Tiranti.
Forbus, K., Tomai, E., & Usher, J. (2003). Qualitative spatial reasoning for visual grouping in sketches. Proc. 16th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, pp. 79–86, Brasilia.
Fowlkes, E. & Mallows, C. (1983). A method for comparing two hierarchical clusterings. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(4), 553–569.Google Scholar
Garey, M.R. & Johnson, D.S. (1983). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Gero, J.S. & Jupp, J. (2003). Feature-based qualitative representations of plans. CAADRIA03, pp. 117–128, Rangsit University, Bangkok.
Gero, J.S. & Kazakov, V. (2001). Entropic similarity and complexity measures for architectural drawings. Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II (Gero, J.S., Tversky, B. & Purcell, T., Eds.), pp. 147–161, University of Sydney.
Gero, J.S. & Park, S.-H. (1997). Qualitative representation of shape and space for computer-aided architectural design. CAADRIA'97 (Liu, Y.-T., Tsou, J.-Y. & Hou, J.-H., Eds.), pp. 323–334. Taipei, Taiwan: Hu Publishers.
Gross, M. & Do, E. (1995). Drawing analogies—supporting creative architectural design with visual references. 3rd Int. Conf. Computational Models of Creative Design (Maher, M-.L. & Gero, J., Eds.), pp. 37–58, University of Sydney.
Güsgen, H.W. (1989). Spatial Reasoning Based on Allen's Temporal Logic. Technical Report TR-89-049. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.
Hall, M. (2000). Correlation-based feature selection for discrete and numeric class machine learning. 17th Int. Conf. Machine Learning, pp. 359–366.
Honkela, T., Kaski, S., Kohonen, T., & Lagus, K. (1998). Self-organizing maps of very large document collections: justification for the WEBSOM method. In Classification, Data Analysis, and Data Highways (Balderjahn, I., Mathar, R. & Schader, M., Eds.), pp. 245–252. Berlin: Springer.
Jupp, J. (2006). Diagrammatic reasoning in design: computational and cognitive studies in similarity assessment. PhD Thesis. University of Sydney, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
Jupp, J. & Gero, J.S. (2004). Qualitative representation and reasoning in design: a hierarchy of shape and spatial languages. Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design III (Gero, J.S., Tversky, B. & Knight, T., Eds.), pp. 139–163, University of Sydney, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
Jupp, J. & Gero, J.S. (2005). Cognitive studies in similarity assessment: evaluating a neural network model of visuospatial design similarity. Int. Workshop on Human Behaviour in Designing (HBiD05), Aix en Provence, France, September 2005.
Jupp, J. & Gero, J.S. (2006). Towards computational analysis of style in architectural design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 57(5), 45–61.Google Scholar
Knight, T.W. (1994). Transformations in Design. A Formal Approach to Stylistic Change and Innovation in the Visual Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohonen, T. (1982). Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43(1), 59–69.Google Scholar
Kohonen, T. (1995). Self Organising Maps. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Laaksonen, J., Koskela, M., Laakso, S., & Oja, E. (2000). PicSOM—content-based image retrieval with self-organizing maps. Pattern Recognition Letters, 21(13–14), 1199–1207.Google Scholar
Love, B.C. & Sloman, S.A. (1995). Mutability and the determinants of conceptual transformability. Proc. 17th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society, pp. 654–659, Pittsburgh, PA.
Marr, D. & Nishihara, H.K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B200(2), 269–294.Google Scholar
Medin, D.L., Goldstone, R.L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254–278.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, A. (1989). Getting beneath the geometry: a systematic approach to modeling spatial relations. Proc. Workshop on Model-Based Reasoning, IJCAI-89, pp. 140–141, Detroit.
Oja, E., Lassksonen, J., Koskela, M., & Brandt, S. (1999). Self-organizing maps for content-based image database retrieval. In Kohonen Maps (Oja, E. & Kaski, S., Eds.). New York: Elsevier.
Park, S.-H. & Gero, J.S. (2000). Categorisation of shapes using shape features. Artificial Intelligence in Design '00 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 203–223. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Salton, G. & McGill, M.J. (1983). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Schapiro, M. (1961). Style. In Aesthetics Today (Philipson, M. & Gudel, P.J., Eds.), pp. 137–171. New York: New American Library.
Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Slonim, N., Friedman, N., & Tishby, N. (2002). Unsupervised document classification using sequential information maximization. Proc. SIGIR'02, 25th ACM Int. Conf. Research and Development of Information Retrieval, Tampere, Finland. New York: ACM Press.
Thomas, M.S.C. & Mareschal, D. (1997). Connectionism and psychological notions of similarity. Proc. 19th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society, pp. 757–762. London: Erlbaum.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(3), 327–352.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89(1), 123–154.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. (1999). What does drawing reveal about thinking? Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design I (Gero, J.S., Tversky, B. & Knight, T., Eds.), pp. 271–282, University of Sydney, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
Wertheimer, M. (1977). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Psychologische Forschung, 4(3), 301–350.Google Scholar