<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Seeing the forest or the tree depends on personality: Evidence from process communication model during global/local visual search task

Sixtine Lefebvre, Virginie Beaucousin

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Sixtine Lefebvre, Virginie Beaucousin. Seeing the forest or the tree depends on personality: Evidence from process communication model during global/local visual search task. PLoS ONE, 2023, 18 (4), pp.e0284596. 10.1371/journal.pone.0284596 . hal-04089433

HAL Id: hal-04089433

https://hal.science/hal-04089433

Submitted on 4 May 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Seeing the forest or the tree depends on personality: Evidence from process communication model during global/local visual search task

Sixtine Lefebvre¹, Virginie Beaucousin²*

1. Psychologist, PCM Trainer, PCM R&D Projects, Croisy-sur-Eure, France, 2. Université de Rouen Normandie, UR7475, CRFDP, Rouen, France

* virginie.beaucousin@univ-rouen.fr

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

In everyday life, we are continuously confronted with multiple levels of visual information processes (e.g., global information, the forest, and local information, the tree) and we must select information that has to be processed. In the present study, we investigated the relation between personality and the ability to process global and local visual information. Global precedence phenomenon was assessed by a standard global/local visual search task used in many visuo-spatial precedent studies, and the 77 participants were also presented with the standard Process Communication Model (PCM) questionnaire. Results suggest that the ability to process global and local properties of visual stimuli varied according to the Base type of participants. Even if four among six Base types (Thinker, Persister, Harmonizer and Promoter) presented a classical global visual precedence, the two other Base types (Rebel and Imaginer) presented only an effect of distractors and an effect of global advantage, respectively. Taken together, these results evidenced that each human being does not equally perceive the “forest” (global information) and the “tree” (local information). Even if objectively presented with similar visual stimuli, individual responses differ according to the Base, an inter-individual variability that could be taken into account during daily life situations.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Lefebvre S, Beaucousin V (2023) Seeing the forest or the tree depends on personality: Evidence from process communication model during global/local visual search task. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0284596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596

**Editor:** Xiong Jiang, Georgetown University Medical Center, UNITED STATES

**Received:** December 20, 2022

**Accepted:** April 3, 2023

**Published:** April 21, 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 Lefebvre, Beaucousin. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

**Funding:** The Author Virginie Beaucousin received no specific funding for this work. The author Sixtine Lefebvre is employee by Kahler Communication France (KCF) which has the right for the exploitation of the PCM questionnaire. KCF had no role in the study design, data collection, decision to publish. KCF only check for the exact description of the PCM.

## Introduction

Seeing the forest or seeing the tree? In everyday life, we are continuously confronted with multiple levels of visual information processes (e.g., global information, the forest, and local information, the trees) and we must select information that has to be processed. Over the last century, psychologists understood how attentional resources are distributed during visual scene perception [1]. To study global and local processes, Navon used hierarchical stimuli, consisting of large forms (the global level) composed of a suitable arrangement of small elements [1-3]. These stimuli are particularly clever to study global/local processes, because this experimental material included a global level that could be apprehended independently of the
**Competing interests:** Virginie Beaucousin has declared that no competing interests exist. Sixtine Lefebvre is employee by Kahler Communication France (KCF) which has the right for the exploitation of the PCM questionnaire. KCF had no role in the study design, data collection, decision to publish. KCF only check for the exact description of the PCM. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

local level, and vice-versa. During paradigms that used hierarchical stimuli, two very reproduc-
tible effects have been found: a global advantage, characterized by faster global processing than
local processing, and a global interference, characterized by the influence of global information
during local processing [1, 4]. These effects, defined as the global precedence phenomenon,
appear to impact the neural processing very fast, as suggested by the fact that the human brain
is sensitive as soon as 150 ms to “the forest before the tree” impression [5]. It has also been
showed that global precedence phenomenon is not a predefined way of processing: it evolves
during developmental period in children, with an evolution of visual perception mode charac-
terized by a change from a preference for local visual information to an adult-like preference
for global information, with a transition in visual preference occurring around 6 years of age
[6–8], suggesting that these processes are sensible to both brain maturation and environment
influences [6, 9]. A large majority of published studies have focused on experimental stimuli
and task variations that could affect the global precedence phenomenon [10–13]. For instance,
factors such as the sparsity between local elements [14], the saliency of the global form [15],
the exposure duration [16] or the visual angle of presentation [17] modulate the global prece-
dence phenomenon. Some studies have also investigated how interindividual characteristics
could affect global and local processes. Indeed, as a matter of fact, even if global and local infor-
mation present in the visual environment are identical for all of us, the way in which partici-
pants process a visual scene varied according to culture [18], gender and age [19], verbal/visual
styles [20], field-dependency characteristics [21], and handedness [22]. For instance, Nisbett
and Masuda [18] evidenced that when people from different cultures were asked to described
a visual scene, Western culture participants focused in a stronger way on local objects in com-
parison to Asian culture participants, who focused more on the global context of the scene.
Similarly, it has been suggested by Poirel and collaborators [21] that individual sensitivity
toward global information is related to his/her degree of field dependency [23], defined as the
sensitivity to the Gestalt laws of perceptual organization in natural grouping elements (e.g.,
proximity, similarity, good form and simplicity, that represents the tendency to group together
things that are close in space, that are similar, to organize things as simple as possible, respec-
tively [24, 25]). It suggests that even if the global precedence effect seems to be a standard way
of processing, in agreement with biological models of visual perception [26, 27], inter-individ-
ual variabilities such as social and environment factors affect the way different people perceive
their visual world. Even if it has been shown that personal characteristics correlated with
neurophysiological processes during mental tasks such as reasoning [28], to our knowledge
the relationship between the global precedence phenomenon and interindividual personality
structure has never been investigated. Here, we used Process Communication Model®
(PCM) questionnaire, elaborated by Kahler, who defined six Personality Types, each being
present in everyone [29], with a predominant Personality Type called “Base”. Originated for
NASA astronaut selection and training in 1978 (see e.g. [30]), PCM allows defining each per-
son into 6 different Personality Types: Thinker, Persister, Harmonizer, Rebel, Imaginer, Pro-
moter. Each type has its character strengths. The character strengths that belong to: the
Thinker type are “Responsible, Logical and Organized”, the Persister type are “Dedicated,
Observant and Conscientious”, the Harmonizer type are “Compassionate, Sensitive and
Warm”, the Rebel type are “Spontaneous, Creative and Playful”, the Imaginer type are “Reflec-
tive, Calm and Imaginative”, the Promoter type are “Adaptable, Charming and Persuasive”
[29]. Every person has the six Personality Types, each type being represented at different
strengths. The Personality Structure is represented by a Condominium, in which a person’s
Base Type is the ground level, the most developed one, the easiest and the most accessible and
with the strongest Character Strengths. Every Type is linked to a dominant Perception. There
are six Perceptions by which we experience, interpret, and respond to our environment, the
one the most developed is the one of our Base. Harmonizer Base perceives the word throughout Emotions. Thinker Base perceives the word throughout Thoughts. Rebel Base perceives the word throughout Reactions. Persister Base perceives the word throughout Opinions. Imaginer Base perceives the word throughout Inaction (Reflexions). Promoter Base perceives the word throughout Actions.

In the present study, we investigated the relation between the Base type and the ability to process global and local visual information. Global precedence phenomenon was assessed by a standard global/local visual search task used in many visuo-spatial precedent studies [31-34], and each participant was also presented with the standard Process Communication Model (PCM) questionnaire. We hypothesized that because of dominant Perception preferences (see above, and see [35]), participants, according to their Base Type, should be differently sensible to global precedence phenomenon during visuo-attentional task. For instance, Rebel Base (who show Spontaneous, Creative and Playful Character Strengths) and Persister Base (who show Observant, Conscientious and Dedicated Character Strengths) should be more sensible to interference effects during visuo-spatial processing than Imaginer Base (who show Calm, Reflective and Imaginative Character Strengths). Thus, the present work will allow to uncover how the global precedence phenomenon is modulated by Base type during visuo-spatial task that is essential in everyday life situations (e.g., [36]).

# Methods

## Participants

A total of 77 healthy volunteer participants (42 women, mean age = 40.75 years ± 8.39 years, Table 1) participated in the experiment. An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [37] was conducted with a mixed 6x3x4 design with one between-subject factor of group (Thinker Base, Persister Base, Harmonizer Base, Rebel Base, Imaginer Base, Promoter Base) and two within-subject factors (level of target occurrence: local, intermediate, global; number of distributors: 0, 1, 3, 5) indicated that a sample size of 30 participants (5 per group) would be sufficient to detect a medium effect size (f = .25) with a power of .80 and an alpha of .05. All of the participants have normal or corrected-to-normal vision. No participants reported neurological or neuropsychiatric disorders or the use of psychoactive medications. All participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (BMJ 1991; 302:1194). The whole procedure was approved by the local ethics committee (CCE n°2022-09-A 2022/10/20).

<table><caption>Table 1. Sociodemographic and cognitive characteristics of the participants.</caption><thead><tr><td>Base</td><td>Women/Men</td><td>Age</td><td>Onward digit span</td><td>Backward digit span</td><td>Raven matrix</td><td>Stroop</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rebel</td><td>8/7</td><td>37±7</td><td>6.4±1.3</td><td>5.1±1.4</td><td>20.6±2.7</td><td>154±129</td></tr><tr><td>Thinker</td><td>6/10</td><td>45±7</td><td>6.8±1.5</td><td>5.3±1.6</td><td>21.6±2.6</td><td>183±131</td></tr><tr><td>Harmonizer</td><td>16/5</td><td>40±7</td><td>6.7±1.5</td><td>5.2±1.4</td><td>20.0±2.7</td><td>140±115</td></tr><tr><td>Imaginer</td><td>2/6</td><td>45±8</td><td>6.6±1.1</td><td>5.9±1.2</td><td>22.6±1.8</td><td>123±71</td></tr><tr><td>Persister</td><td>4/3</td><td>42±11</td><td>6.9±1.2</td><td>6.0±1.4</td><td>22.5±3.6</td><td>71±104</td></tr><tr><td>Promoter</td><td>7/3</td><td>38±9</td><td>6.1±1.3</td><td>5.4±1.8</td><td>20.2±3.6</td><td>129±85</td></tr></tbody></table>

This Table 1 provides for each type of base (Rebel, Thinker, Harmonizer, Imaginer, Persister, Promoter) the number of women and men, the mean age with its standard deviation (SD), the mean score and the SD for the digit span (WAIS-III), the mean score and the SD for the backward digit span (WAIS-III), the mean score and the SD for the Raven progressive matrix test, and the mean interference score and the SD for the Victoria Stroop task.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596.t001
Experimental procedure

The standard Process Communication Model (PCM) questionnaire was filled by each partici-
pant at home in order to have all the time required to complete it. Then the participants were
individually presented with a global/local visual task, a working memory digit span task (WAI-
S-III), a Victoria Stroop task and Raven progressive matrix test in an unique session (Table 1).
The global/local task consisted in the presentation of three-level hierarchical stimuli composed
of geometrical forms at each level (i.e., global, intermediate, and local, see Fig 1, [9]). Partici-
pants had to decide as fast as possible whether a square was present at any level of the hierar-
chical figure and responded by pressing the left button of the mouse to respond “square
present” and the right button to respond “square absent”. The target was actually present in
half of the trials. One, two, four or six three-level hierarchical stimuli were presented at the
same time on the screen. In the present-target trials, only one hierarchical stimulus contained
the target, which appeared at only one level (global, intermediate or local; Fig 2). Thus, in pres-
ent-target trials, there could be zero, one, three or five distractors. Note that the ratio between
the number of targets and the number of distractors was kept constant regardless of the level at
which the target was presented. In the absent-target trials, there was no square target: circles
were presented at all three levels.

The global/local visual search task was presented using a laptop computer with a 15-inch
screen (refresh rate: 60 Hz) running the E-Prime 2 software application (Psychology Software
Tools). The participants viewed the stimuli at a distance of approximately 60 cm. Each of the
local elements fits within the confines of virtual rectangles of 0.27° in height and 0.20° in
width. Intermediate geometric figures were 1.08° in height and 0.81° in width, and global fig-
ures were 4.84° in height and 3.62° in width. Present-target items and absent-target items
appeared equally often in each virtual quadrant of the screen.

Each participant started with a training session consisting of 16 trials and were instructed
to respond as accurately and as quickly as possible. The participant then performed two blocks
of 48 trials with 24 present-target trials (6 trials without any distractors, 6 trials with 1 distrac-
tor, 6 trials with 3 distractors and 6 trials with 5 distractors; see Fig 2) and 24 absent-target tri-
als in each block (6 trials per number of hierarchical figures appearing on the screen: 1, 2, 4 or
6 hierarchical figures). The trials were randomized within blocks. In the present-target trials,
the target appeared equally often at the global, intermediate and local levels. Each trial started
with the presentation of a blank screen (500 ± 250 ms), and then a stimulus was displayed. The
stimulus remained on the screen until the participant provided an answer. Response times
(RTs) were recorded from the onset of the stimulus to the button-press.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Hierarchical stimuli used in the experiment.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596.g001
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2.** Example of present-target trial with a target present at the intermediate level with five distractors. Note that targets could appear equally often at the global level, the intermediate level or the local level, and there could be zero, one, three or five distractors in the display.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596.g002

Participants ability to stock and manipulate information in short term and in working memory was assessed with onward and backward digit span test. In this task, the participants listened to series of discrete digits and were asked to recall the series of digits in the first part of the task in the same order of presentation, and in the second part of the task in the reverse order of presentation. The participants first performed two series of two digits. The series of digits were incrementally increased by one digit every two trials. The task was stopped when the participants failed to recall two trials with the same number of digits. The short-term memory score was defined as the number of series correctly recalled during the onward part of the task and the working memory score was defined as the number of series correctly recalled during the backward part of the task. The inhibitory control ability was assessed with a Stroop task, in which participants were required to indicate the color of the ink with which the word is written, not to read the written word, as soon as the words appear on the screen. Twenty-four words were presented with congruent information (i.e., ink color congruent with the written word, e.g. BLUE written with a blue ink) and 24 words were presented with incongruent information (i.e., ink color was incongruent with the written word, e.g. the word RED
written with a blue ink). Individual interference scores were computed, by subtracting the con-
gruent RTs from the incongruent RTs for each participant. Finally, the Raven progressive
matrix test was presented individually to each participant. In each of the 26 trials, they had to
identify the missing element that completes a pattern. The score was calculated as the number
of trials correctly completed.

Results

Among all participants, PCM questionnaire indicated that 16 participants were identified hav-
ing a Thinker Base, 7 had a Persister Base, 21 had a Harmonizer Base, 15 had a Rebel Base, 8
had an Imaginer Base and 10 had a Promoter Base (Table 1). Regarding the global/local task,
the present-target trials and the absent target trials, as well as accuracy rates and RTs, were ana-
lyzed separately (see the supplementary information in the S1 Table). Because participants
were highly accurate and presented a ceiling effect during global/local visual task (mean
accuracy ± standard error: 95.8 ± 0.9, 98.9 ± 0.9 and 95.3 ± 0.9 for global, intermediate and
local present-target trials, respectively; 99.5 ± 0.4, 98.7 ± 0.4 and 98.7 ± 0.4 for global, interme-
diate and local absent-target trials, respectively), only RTs were analyzed using Jamovi software
application (cc 4.0). Post hoc comparisons were performed using paired t tests with Holm-
Bonferroni correction.

For the present-target trials, RTs for correct responses were included in a three-factor
repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a between-subject factor of group
(Base: Thinker, Persister, Harmonizer, Rebel, Imaginer, Promoter) and 2 within-subject fac-
tors (the level of target occurrence (global, intermediate or local) and the number of distractors
(0, 1, 3 or 5, see the supplementary information in the S1 Table)). For the absent-target trials,
RTs for correct responses were included in a similar analysis of variance as those for present-
target trials, providing that stimuli were presented at the same location during present- and
absent-target trials, but with no target presented during the target-absent trials. Finally, all
ANOVAS included onward and backward working memory digit span scores, Stroop task
score and Raven progressive matrix score as covariates.

For present-target trials, the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed main effects of level of
target occurrence, *F* (2,134) = 4.51, *p* = 0.013, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .06, and number of distractors, *F* (3,201)
= 2.93, *p* = 0.035, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .04. Regarding level of target occurrence, global and intermediate
levels did not differ (*p* = 0.59) and were processed faster than local level (*p*'s < 0.001). The
main effect of number of distractors revealed a general RTs increasing with number of dis-
tractors present on the screen (all *p*'s > 0.03). Present-target trials RTs were not affected by
covariables (onward and backward working memory digit span scores, Stroop task score
and Raven progressive matrix score, all *ps* > 0.27 for all main effects and interactions).
Finally, this analysis also revealed a significant group x level of target occurrence x number
of distractors interaction, *F* (30,402) = 1.60, *p* = 0.026, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .11. As shown in Fig 3, group x
level of target occurrence x number of distractors interaction revealed that Thinker, Per-
sister, Harmonizer and Promoter Base participants presented a classical global precedence
effect, characterized by similar RTs between global and intermediate levels that were not
affected by the number of distractors, and slower RTs for local level which were affected by
the number of distractors. In agreement with the aforementioned global precedence effect,
post hoc analyses revealed level of target occurrence x number of distractors interactions
for Thinker Base, *F* (6,90) = 5.25, *p* < 0.001, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .26, Persister Base, *F* (6,36) = 2.75,
*p* = 0.026, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .34, Harmonizer Base, *F* (6,120) = 3.72, *p* = 0.002, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .16, and Promoter
Base, *F* (6,54) = 5.89, *p* < 0.001, *η*<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .40. On the other hand, Imaginer Base and Rebel Base
did not present such classical global precedence patterns of responses (*F* (6,42) = 1.30,
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Interaction between the group of participants (Thinker Base, Persister Base, Harmonizer Base, Promoter Base), the level of target occurrence and the number of distractors (top) and effect of the number of distractors and of the level of target occurrence for the Rebel Base and Imaginer Base, respectively (bottom). \*p < .05, error bars indicate standard error of the mean.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596.g003

$p = 0.277, \eta_p^2 = .16$ and $F(6,84) = 1.82, p = 0.104, \eta_p^2 = .12$ for Imaginer Base and Rebel Base, respectively). Imaginer Base were only characterized by a global advantage, $F(2,14) = 7.13, p = 0.007, \eta_p^2 = .51$, whereas Rebel Base presented only an effect of the number of distractors irrespective of the level, $F(3,42) = 3.22, p = 0.032, \eta_p^2 = .19$ (Fig 3).

For absent-target trials, the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed only a main effect of number of stimuli present on the display, $F(3,201) = 6.88, p < 0.001, \eta_p^2 = .09$, and no groups x number of stimuli interaction, $F(15,201) = 1.62, p = 0.07, \eta_p^2 = .11$. As shown in Fig 4, RTs increased with the number of stimuli present on the display, whichever group. Finally, absent-target trials RTs were not affected by covariables (onward and backward working memory digit span scores, Stroop task score and Raven progressive matrix score, all $p_s > 0.11$ for all main effects and interactions).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig 4. Effect of the number of distractors in absent-target trials. \*p < .05, error bars indicate standard error of the mean.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284596.g004

Discussion

Over the last century, psychologists have tried to understand how attentional resources are dis-
tributed in a visual display (e.g., [5, 9, 33, 38, 39]). Seminal publication by Navon evidenced
the well-known “global precedence phenomenon” [1] characterized by a processing advantage
of the global over the local information and an interference from the global information dur-
ing local processing [1, 4]. The present study investigated how the global precedence phenom-
enon varied according to the personality structure. For the first time, to our knowledge,
experimental results suggest that the ability to process global and local properties of visual sti-
muli varied according to the Base type of participants. Even if four among six Base Types
(Thinker, Persister, Harmonizer and Promoter) present a classical global visual precedence,
the two other Base Types (Rebel and Imaginer) presented only an effect of distractors and an
effect of global advantage, respectively. This result is coherent with the traditional main result
evidenced in the literature: the majority of participants presents a global precedence phenome-
non. On the other hand, our findings suggest that a fine-grained analysis revealed that among
Bases some participants are either less sensitive to the number of distractors presents on the screen (i.e., Imaginer Base participants) or less sensitive to the level of processing (i.e., Rebel Base participants). This is in line with the view that inter-individual particularities may affect the way we consider visual information [21]. Why do Imaginer Base and Rebel Base participants did not present a traditional global precedence phenomenon compared to other participants? Imaginer Base are described as imaginative, calm and reflective. In agreement with these characteristics, it seems conceivable that Imaginer Base participants consider visual information in a “coarse to fine” way of processing [40], from the global to the local information, with a less competitive way of processing regarding distractors information. In agreement with this hypothesis, Imaginer Base were thus only sensible to the level of processing, with a lower influence of the number of distractors present on the display. On the other hand, Rebel Base participants were only sensible to the number of distractors presented on the display. Rebel Base are described as Playful, Creative and Spontaneous, these particularities may lead to a variation of attentional resources involvement during global and local processes, principally focused on all information presented on the display. Consequently, Rebel Base may be more sensible to the variation of the number of stimuli present on the display. Further investigation will be required to confirm these assumptions, for instance using brain imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging or event-related potential methods, in order to investigate the brain network variations subtended the present behavioral results. It seems conceivable that the involvement of both frontal (control processing, see e.g., [41]), associated to parietal and occipital regions (visuo-attentional network, see e.g., [6, 42]) involvement during global and local processes varied according to participants’ Base. Critically, one could argue that because every person has all the six Personality Types, each type being represented at different strengths, the present global/local visual task may evaluate only the participant’ ability to use his/her Thinker level (i.e., Thinker level may represent the logical way of processing in each Personality Structure), rather than a general impact of his/her predominant Base Type. Complementary analyses revealed that neither Thinker level (between 1 and 6) nor percentage of Thinker abilities affected the present results (all ps > .10), ruling out this possibility.

Recent work evidenced that performances on Navon's hierarchical stimuli relates systemat-
ically to the ability to process common real objects [36] and numerous studies argued that
global and local processes could be linked to the efficiency of a wide range of abilities such as
reading, memory processing, social cognition [43-46] and even decision making and reason-
ing efficacy [47]. These subsequent cognitive processes were thus proposed to depend on how
participant combine local and global information. It seems highly possible that because Base
affects the primary consideration of visual information, the following cognitive processes may
be modulated by this inter-individual characteristic. The question of potential qualitative and
quantitative variations regarding these cognitive abilities should be carefully examined in
future studies as well as with more daily life situations.

Similarly, it has been suggested that varying methods approaches during academic learning
according to personality aspects of the students might be essential to delivering curricula effec-
tively [48]. The present results go further and reinforce the view that considering the personal-
ity information may help understanding how students take into account visual information
presented during their schooling. This provides promising clue that will be useful in future
studies to optimize learning process.

A limitation must be pointed out here. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first
to link visual process and to personality structure. Even if the sample size of the present study
was sufficient to show medium effect size, the present results required to be replicated with a
larger sample size. Future studies will also need to explore other cognitive functions in order to
better understand the link between cognition and the different personality structures.
In conclusion, the present study evidenced that each human being does not equally perceive the forest (global information) and the tree (local information). Even if objectively presented with similar visual stimuli, individual responses differ according to the Base. Taken together, the current behavioral data suggests that according to the Base, adults differently consider the “forest and the tree”, a variation that has to be taken into account during daily life situations. These findings reinforce the view that personality structure has a strong impact on how we perceive, and probably even think, about the visual world.

**Supporting information**

**S1 Table. Data set.** This S1 Table provides for each participant, his/her base (column B: Rebel, Thinker, Harmonizer, Iaginer, Persister, Promoter), his/her age (column C), his/her gender (column D), the score for the onward digit span (WAIS-III, column E), the score for the backward digit span (WAIS-III, column F), the number of the successful Raven progressive matrix test (column G), the interference for the Victoria Stroop task (column BH: the response time (RT) for the incongruent words minus the RT for the congruent words). The rest of the columns (I to BD) provide the accuracy (Acc) and the response time (RT) to the global/local visual search task. (0,1,3,5 correspond to the number of distractors; abs: target absent; global/local/intermediate (interm) correspond to the level where the target is present; pres: target present).
(XLSX)

**Acknowledgments**

The authors thank Pr. Nicolas Poirel for his invaluable help and advices in this research.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Sixtine Lefebvre.

**Formal analysis:** Sixtine Lefebvre, Virginie Beaucousin.

**Methodology:** Sixtine Lefebvre.

**Writing – original draft:** Sixtine Lefebvre, Virginie Beaucousin.

**Writing – review & editing:** Sixtine Lefebvre, Virginie Beaucousin.

**References**

1. Navon D. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology. 1977; 9: 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3

2. Navon D. The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychol Res. 1981; 43: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309635

3. Navon D. What does a compound letter tell the psychologist's mind? Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003; 114: 273–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.06.002 PMID: 14670701

4. Poirel N, Pineau A, Mellet E. What does the nature of the stimuli tell us about the Global Precedence Effect? Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008; 127: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.001 PMID: 17240344

5. Beaucousin V, Simon G, Cassotti M, Pineau A, Houdé O, Poirel N. Global interference during early visual processing: ERP evidence from a rapid global/local selective task. Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 539. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00539 PMID: 23986728

6. Poirel N, Simon G, Cassotti M, Leroux G, Perchey G, Lanoë C, et al. The shift from local to global visual processing in 6-year-old children is associated with grey matter loss. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e20879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020879 PMID: 21687636
7. Poirel N, Mellet E, Houdé O, Pineau A. First came the trees, then the forest: developmental changes during childhood in the processing of visual local-global patterns according to the meaningfulness of the stimuli. Dev Psychol. 2008; 44: 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.245 PMID: 18194023

8. Poirel N, Leroux E, Pineau A, Houdé O, Simon G. Changes in cortical thickness in 6-year-old children open their mind to a global vision of the world. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 362349. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/362349 PMID: 25110675

9. Krakowski C-S, Poirel N, Vidal J, Roëll M, Pineau A, Borst G, et al. The forest, the trees, and the leaves: Differences of processing across development. Dev Psychol. 2016; 52: 1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000138 PMID: 27455187

10. Kimchi R. Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112: 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.24 PMID: 1529037

11. Shedden JM, Reid GS. A variable mapping task produces symmetrical interference between global information and local information. Percept Psychophys. 2001; 63: 241–252. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194465 PMID: 11281099

12. Volberg G, Hübner R. Deconfounding the effects of congruency and task difficulty on hemispheric differences in global/local processing. Experimental Psychology. 2007; 54: 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.83 PMID: 17341018

13. Dukette D, Stiles J. The effects of stimulus density on children’s analysis of hierarchical patterns. Developmental Science. 2001; 4: 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00168

14. Martin M. Local and global processing: The role of sparsity. Memory & Cognition. 1979; 7: 476–484. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198264

15. Ripoll T, Fiere É, Pélissier A. Relative Weight of Local and Global Properties Depends on Both the Position of Local Elements and the Saliency of Global Form. Experimental Psychology. 2005; 52: 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.4.272 PMID: 16302536

16. Andres AJD, Fernandes MA. Effect of short and long exposure duration and dual-tasking on a global-local task. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2006; 122: 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.12.002 PMID: 16413493

17. Lamb MR, Robertson LC. The effect of visual angle on global and local reaction times depends on the set of visual angles presented. Perception & Psychophysics. 1990; 47: 489–496. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208182 PMID: 2349061

18. Nisbett RE, Masuda T. Culture and point of view. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100: 11163–11170. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1934527100 PMID: 12960375

19. Müller-Oehring EM, Schulte T, Raassi C, Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV. Local-global interference is modulated by age, sex and anterior corpus callosum size. Brain Res. 2007; 1142: 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.062 PMID: 17335783

20. Sadler-Smith E. The intuitive style: Relationships with local/global and verbal/visual styles, gender, and superstitious reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21: 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.013

21. Poirel N, Pineau A, Jobard G, Mellet E. Seeing the forest before the trees depends on individual field-dependency characteristics. Exp Psychol. 2008; 55: 328–333. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.5.328 PMID: 25116300

22. Mevorach C, Humphreys GW, Shalev L. Attending to local form while ignoring global aspects depends on handedness: Evidence from TMS. Nature Neuroscience. 2005; 8: 276–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1400 PMID: 15696162

23. Witkin HA, Goodenough DR. Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. Psychol Issues. 1981; 1–141.

24. Zusne L. Visual perception of form. New York and London: Academic Press. 1970.

25. Ellis WD. A source book of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. 1950.

26. Bar M. Visual objects in context. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004; 5: 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1476 PMID: 15263892

27. Kauffmann L, Ramanoël S, Peyrin C. The neural bases of spatial frequency processing during scene perception. Front Integr Neurosci. 2014;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2014.00037 PMID: 24847226

28. Maksimenko VA, Runnova AE, Zhuravlev MO, Protasov P, Kulanin R, Khramova MV, et al. Human personality reflects spatio-temporal and time-frequency EEG structure. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0197642. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197642 PMID: 30192756

29. Kahler T. The Process Therapy Model: The Six Personality Types with Adaptations. Taibi Kahler Associates, Incorporated; 2008.
30. McGuire TF. Astronauts; Reflections on Current Selection Methodology, Astronaut Personality, and the Space Station PART I. [cited 6 Dec 2022]. Available: https://silo.tips/download/astronauts-reflections-on-current-selection-methodology-astronaut-personality-an

31. Kimchi R, Hadad B, Behrmann M, Palmer SE. Microgenesis and ontogenesis of perceptual organization: evidence from global and local processing of hierarchical patterns. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16: 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01529.x PMID: 15828975

32. Bouhassoun S, Poirel N, Hamlin N, Doucet GE. The forest, the trees, and the leaves across adulthood: Age-related changes on a visual search task containing three-level hierarchical stimuli. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84: 1004–1015. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02438-3 PMID: 35013995

33. Krakowski C-S, Borst G, Pineau A, Houdé O, Poirel N. You can detect the trees as well as the forest when adding the leaves: evidence from visual search tasks containing three-level hierarchical stimuli. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015; 157: 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.03.001 PMID: 25796055

34. Datin-Dorrière V, Borst G, Guillois B, Cachia A, Poirel N. The forest, the trees, and the leaves in preterm children: the impact of prematurity on a visual search task containing three-level hierarchical stimuli. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01510-x PMID: 32193647

35. Gilbert M, Donlan R. Personality Pattern Inventory. 2016. pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_60-1

36. Gerlach C, Poirel N. Navon's classical paradigm concerning local and global processing relates systematically to visual object classification performance. Sci Rep. 2018; 8: 324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18664-5 PMID: 29321634

37. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39: 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 PMID: 17695343

38. Bouhassoun S, Gerlach C, Borst G, Poirel N. Framing the area: An efficient approach for avoiding visual interference and optimising visual search in adolescents. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2021; 17470218211065012. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211065011 PMID: 34812112

39. Bouhassoun S, Gerlach C, Borst G, Poirel N. Seeing details better: positive impact of a frame during global/local visual search task. Psychological Science. submitted.

40. Hegdé J. Time course of visual perception: coarse-to-fine processing and beyond. Prog Neurobiol. 2008; 84: 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.09.001 PMID: 17976895

41. Poirel N, Krakowski CS, Sayah S, Pineau A, Houdé O, Borst G. Do you want to see the tree? Ignore the forest: inhibitory control during local processing: a negative priming study of local-global processing. Exp Psychol. 2014; 61: 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000240 PMID: 24217136

42. Robertson LC, Lamb MR. Neuropsychological contributions to theories of part/whole organization. Cogn Psychol. 1991; 23: 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90012-d PMID: 2055002

43. Zappullo I, Trojano L, Cecere R, Raimo G, Positano M, Conson M. Switching between the Forest and the Trees: The Contribution of Global to Local Switching to Spatial Constructional Abilities in Typically Developing Children. Brain Sciences. 2020; 10: 955. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10120955 PMID: 33317055

44. Gerlach C, Starrfelt R. Global precedence effects account for individual differences in both face and object recognition performance. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25: 1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1458-1 PMID: 29560562

45. Insch PM, Bull R, Phillips LH, Allen R, Slessor G. Adult Aging, Processing Style, and The Perception of Biological Motion. Experimental Aging Research. 2012; 38: 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2012.660030 PMID: 22404539

46. Oken BS, Kishiyama SS, Kaye JA, Jones DE. Age-Related Differences in Global- Local Processing: Stability of Laterality Differences but Disproportionate Impairment in Global Processing. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1999; 12: 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/089198879901200207 PMID: 10483929

47. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2004; 13: 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x

48. Gilbert M. Different Strokes for Different Folks: Connecting with Students for Academic Success. International Journal of Education. 2014; 6: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v6i4.6269