75
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Experiencing Art: The Influence of Expertise and Painting Abstraction Level

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          How does expertise influence the perception of representational and abstract paintings? We asked 20 experts on art history and 20 laypersons to explore and evaluate a series of paintings ranging in style from representational to abstract in five categories. We compared subjective esthetic judgments and emotional evaluations, gaze patterns, and electrodermal reactivity between the two groups of participants. The level of abstraction affected esthetic judgments and emotional valence ratings of the laypersons but had no effect on the opinions of the experts: the laypersons’ esthetic and emotional ratings were highest for representational paintings and lowest for abstract paintings, whereas the opinions of the experts were independent of the abstraction level. The gaze patterns of both groups changed as the level of abstraction increased: the number of fixations and the length of the scanpaths increased while the duration of the fixations decreased. The viewing strategies – reflected in the target, location, and path of the fixations – however indicated that experts and laypersons paid attention to different aspects of the paintings. The electrodermal reactivity did not vary according to the level of abstraction in either group but expertise was reflected in weaker responses, compared with laypersons, to information received about the paintings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Conference Proceedings: not found

          Object recognition from local scale-invariant features

          D.G. Lowe (1999)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Visual correlates of fixation selection: effects of scale and time.

            What distinguishes the locations that we fixate from those that we do not? To answer this question we recorded eye movements while observers viewed natural scenes, and recorded image characteristics centred at the locations that observers fixated. To investigate potential differences in the visual characteristics of fixated versus non-fixated locations, these images were transformed to make intensity, contrast, colour, and edge content explicit. Signal detection and information theoretic techniques were then used to compare fixated regions to those that were not. The presence of contrast and edge information was more strongly discriminatory than luminance or chromaticity. Fixated locations tended to be more distinctive in the high spatial frequencies. Extremes of low frequency luminance information were avoided. With prolonged viewing, consistency in fixation locations between observers decreased. In contrast to [Parkhurst, D. J., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42 (1), 107-123] we found no change in the involvement of image features over time. We attribute this difference in our results to a systematic bias in their metric. We propose that saccade target selection involves an unchanging intermediate level representation of the scene but that the high-level interpretation of this representation changes over time.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions.

              Observers show a marked tendency to fixate the center of the screen when viewing scenes on computer monitors. This is often assumed to arise because image features tend to be biased toward the center of natural images and fixations are correlated with image features. A common alternative explanation is that experiments typically use a central pre-trial fixation marker, and observers tend to make small amplitude saccades. In the present study, the central bias was explored by dividing images post hoc according to biases in their image feature distributions. Central biases could not be explained by motor biases for making small saccades and were found irrespective of the distribution of image features. When the scene appeared, the initial response was to orient to the center of the screen. Following this, fixation distributions did not vary with image feature distributions when freely viewing scenes. When searching the scenes, fixation distributions shifted slightly toward the distribution of features in the image, primarily during the first few fixations after the initial orienting response. The endurance of the central fixation bias irrespective of the distribution of image features, or the observer's task, implies one of three possible explanations: First, the center of the screen may be an optimal location for early information processing of the scene. Second, it may simply be that the center of the screen is a convenient location from which to start oculomotor exploration of the scene. Third, it may be that the central bias reflects a tendency to re-center the eye in its orbit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front. Hum. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
                Frontiers Research Foundation
                1662-5161
                14 June 2011
                12 September 2011
                2011
                : 5
                : 94
                Affiliations
                [1] 1simpleBrain Research Unit, Low Temperature Laboratory, Aalto University School of Science Espoo, Finland
                [2] 2simpleDepartment of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland
                [3] 3simpleDepartment of Media Technology, Aalto University School of Science Espoo, Finland
                Author notes

                Edited by: Idan Segev, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

                Reviewed by: Lutz Jäncke, University of Zurich, Switzerland; Tamer Demiralp, Istanbul University, Turkey

                *Correspondence: Elina Pihko, Brain Research Unit, Low Temperature Laboratory, Aalto University School of Science, PO BOX 15100, 00076 Aalto, Finland. e-mail: pihko@ 123456neuro.hut.fi
                Article
                10.3389/fnhum.2011.00094
                3170917
                21941475
                4e8a20ed-f852-48a5-9d7f-e7ed4c9e62f5
                Copyright © 2011 Pihko, Virtanen, Saarinen, Pannasch, Hirvenkari, Tossavainen, Haapala and Hari.

                This is an open-access article subject to a non-exclusive license between the authors and Frontiers Media SA, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and other Frontiers conditions are complied with.

                History
                : 31 March 2011
                : 16 August 2011
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 34, Pages: 10, Words: 7213
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Original Research

                Neurosciences
                esthetic judgment,art perception,electrodermal activity,eye-movement
                Neurosciences
                esthetic judgment, art perception, electrodermal activity, eye-movement

                Comments

                Comment on this article