, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 45–55 | Cite as

Interpretation of image content

  • Nick Eastmond
  • Rune Pettersson
International Review


During the last few years we have undertaken a series of experiments and studies concerning interpretation of image content. Subjects were asked to name image contents, to describe image contents, to index image contents, to write legends, to asses image contents, to create images, to complete a story, to illustrate a story, and to produce informative materials. Results from these experiments, based on more than 62,800 verbal and visual statements from 3,100 subjects, confirm the theory of a dual stage perception process. It is suggested that different assignments cause perception and image interpretation on different cognitive levels.


Image Content Picture Archive Cognitive Level Comic Strip Visual Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barthes, R. (1977). The rhetoric of the image. InImage, music, text. Essays translated by S. Heath, London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  2. Dwyer, F. M. (1978).Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA: Learning Services, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Ek, G., & Frederiksen, M. (1986).Utformning av histogram. Undergraduate thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  4. Elkind, D. (1975). We can teach reading better.Today’s Education, No. 64, 34–38.Google Scholar
  5. Gibson, J. J. (1966).The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Gombrich, E. H. (1969).Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hellspong, L., Melin, L., Pettersson, R., & Propper, G. (1987).Intended and perceived content in informative materials. Paper presented at the Symposium on Verbo-Visual Literacy: Research and Theory, Stockholm, June 10–13.Google Scholar
  8. Limburg, V. E. (1987).Visual “intrusion”: A two-way street in visual literacy. Paper presented at the Symposium on Verbo-Visual Literacy: Research and Theory, Stockholm, June 10–13.Google Scholar
  9. Lodding, K. (1983). Iconic interfacing.Computer Graphics and Applications, 3(2), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pettersson, R. (1983a). Factors in visual language: Image framing.Visual Literacy Newsletter, 12(9,10).Google Scholar
  11. Pettersson, R. (1983b).Visuals for instruction. CLEA no. 12, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  12. Pettersson, R. (1984). Picture legibility, readability and reading value. In Walker, A. D., Braden, R. A., & Dunker, L. H. (Eds.)Enhancing human potential. Readings from the 15th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Blacksburg, VA, 92–108.Google Scholar
  13. Pettersson, R. (1985).Intended and perceived image content. Presentation at the 17th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. Claremont, CA, November 1–2.Google Scholar
  14. Pettersson, R. (1986a, June). Picture archives.EP Journal, 2–3.Google Scholar
  15. Pettersson, R. (1986b).Image-word-image. Presentation at the 18th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Madison, WI, October 30-November 2.Google Scholar
  16. Pettersson, R. (1986c, Spring). See, look and read.Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging, 33–39.Google Scholar
  17. Pettersson, R. (1986d, December). Properties of pixels.EP Journal, 2–4.Google Scholar
  18. Pettersson, R. (1987).Linguistic combinations. Symposium on Verbo Visual Literacy: Research and Theory, Stockholm, June 10–13.Google Scholar
  19. Potter, M. C., & Levy, E. I. (1969). Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Snodgrass, J. G. & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6 (2), 174–215.Google Scholar
  21. Vogel, D. R., Dickson, G. W., & Lehman, J. A. (1986, August). Driving the audience action response.Computer Graphics World.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Eastmond
  • Rune Pettersson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStockholm UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations