{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01870748299319728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.130208333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What Imagery Can't do and why Sketching Might Help

The utility of enactment to overcome the limitations of imagery was investigated in three experiments using a paper- and pencil-sketching task. Novice sketchers were compared to experts. Subjects were briefly presented a configuration of several overlapping simple geometrical components and decided whether a succeeding figure formed part of it. Succeeding figures included novel parts, produced incidentally as a result of overlapping components. The ability to detect these novel parts by imagery alone was expected to be restricted. In the first experiment, forced sketching was compared to imagery-alone conditions. Forced sketching led to enhanced detection of the novel parts in expert-sketchers. By comparison, sketching had no influence on performance in novices. In the second experiment, subjects were given the option to sketch. Both novices and experts turned to spontaneous sketching in the case of novel parts, but only for experts detection of these parts was raised by it. The third experiment controlled for effects of memory load. Implications for the controversy about discovery in imagery are discussed.