Marcos Nadal

Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference

Aiming to provide a tentative framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference, we review three recent neuroimaging studies carried out with the purpose of locating brain activity associated with decisions about the beauty of visual stimuli (Cela-Conde et al., 2004; Kawabata and Zeki, 2004; Vartanian and Goel, 2004). We find that the results of the three studies are not in line with previous neuropsychological data. Moreover, there are no coincidences among their results. However, when they are mapped on to Chatterjees (2003) neuropsychological model of aesthetic preference it becomes clear that neuroimaging data are not contradictory, but complementary, and their interpretation is enriched. The results of these studies suggest that affective processes have an important role in aesthetic preference, and that they are integrated with cognitive processes to reach a decision regarding the beauty of visual stimuli. Future studies must aim to clarify whether certain methodological procedures are better suited to study any of the particular cognitive operations involved in aesthetic preference, and ascertain the extent to which the proposed framework is compatible with the aesthetic appreciation of musical stimuli.

Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments : The aesthetic episode – Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics

About a decade ago, psychology of the arts started to gain momentum owing to a number of drives: technological progress improved the conditions under which art could be studied in the laboratory, neuroscience discovered the arts as an area of interest, and new theories offered a more comprehensive look at aesthetic experiences. Ten years ago, Leder, Belke, Oeberst, and Augustin (2004) proposed a descriptive information-processing model of the components that integrate an aesthetic episode. This theory offered explanations for modern arts large number of individualized styles, innovativeness, and for the diverse aesthetic experiences it can stimulate. In addition, it described how information is processed over the time course of an aesthetic episode, within and over perceptual, cognitive and emotional components. Here, we review the current state of the model, and its relation to the major topics in empirical aesthetics today, including the nature of aesthetic emotions, the role of context, and the neural and evolutionary foundations of art and aesthetics.

The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation

The study of the cognitive and neural underpinnings of aesthetic appreciation by means of neuroimaging techniques has yielded a wealth of fascinating information. Although the results of these studies have been somewhat divergent, here we provide an integrative view of the early approaches, which identified some of the core mechanisms involved in aesthetic preference. Then, a number of more specific issues under the perspective of recent work are addressed. Finally, we propose a framework to accommodate these findings and we explore future prospects for the emerging field of neuroaesthetics.

Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art

Visual complexity has been known to be a significant predictor of preference for artistic works for some time. The first study reported here examines the extent to which perceived visual complexity in art can be successfully predicted using automated measures of complexity. Contrary to previous findings the most successful predictor of visual complexity was Gif compression. The second study examined the extent to which fractal dimension could account for judgments of perceived beauty. The fractal dimension measure accounts for more of the variance in judgments of perceived beauty in visual art than measures of visual complexity alone, particularly for abstract and natural images. Results also suggest that when colour is removed from an artistic image observers are unable to make meaningful judgments as to its beauty.

Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture

On average, we urban dwellers spend about 90% of our time indoors, and share the intuition that the physical features of the places we live and work in influence how we feel and act. However, there is surprisingly little research on how architecture impacts behavior, much less on how it influences brain function. To begin closing this gap, we conducted a functional magnetic resonance imaging study to examine how systematic variation in contour impacts aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions, outcome measures of interest to both architects and users of spaces alike. As predicted, participants were more likely to judge spaces as beautiful if they were curvilinear than rectilinear. Neuroanatomically, when contemplating beauty, curvilinear contour activated the anterior cingulate cortex exclusively, a region strongly responsive to the reward properties and emotional salience of objects. Complementing this finding, pleasantness—the valence dimension of the affect circumplex—accounted for nearly 60% of the variance in beauty ratings. Furthermore, activation in a distributed brain network known to underlie the aesthetic evaluation of different types of visual stimuli covaried with beauty ratings. In contrast, contour did not affect approach-avoidance decisions, although curvilinear spaces activated the visual cortex. The results suggest that the well-established effect of contour on aesthetic preference can be extended to architecture. Furthermore, the combination of our behavioral and neural evidence underscores the role of emotion in our preference for curvilinear objects in this domain.

Art in time and space: context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time.

The experience of art emerges from the interaction of various cognitive and affective processes. The unfolding of these processes in time and their relation with viewing behavior, however, is still poorly understood. Here we examined the effect of context on the relation between the experience of art and viewing time, the most basic indicator of viewing behavior. Two groups of participants viewed an art exhibition in one of two contexts: one in the museum, the other in the laboratory. In both cases viewing time was recorded with a mobile eye tracking system. After freely viewing the exhibition, participants rated each artwork on liking, interest, understanding, and ambiguity scales. Our results show that participants in the museum context liked artworks more, found them more interesting, and viewed them longer than those in the laboratory. Analyses with mixed effects models revealed that aesthetic appreciation (compounding liking and interest), understanding, and ambiguity predicted viewing time for artworks and for their corresponding labels. The effect of aesthetic appreciation and ambiguity on viewing time was modulated by context: Whereas art appreciation tended to predict viewing time better in the laboratory than in museum context, the relation between ambiguity and viewing time was positive in the museum and negative in the laboratory context. Our results suggest that art museums foster an enduring and focused aesthetic experience and demonstrate that context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing behavior.

The Copenhagen Neuroaesthetics conference: Prospects and pitfalls for an emerging field

Neuroaesthetics is a young field of research concerned primarily with the neural basis of cognitive and affective processes engaged when an individual takes an aesthetic or artistic approach towards a work of art, a non-artistic object or a natural phenomenon. In September 2009, the Copenhagen Neuroaesthetics Conference brought together leading researchers in the field to present and discuss current advances. We summarize some of the principal themes of the conference, placing neuroaesthetics in a historical context and discussing its scope and relation to other disciplines. We also identify what we believe to be the key outstanding questions, the main pitfalls and challenges faced by the field, and some promising avenues for future research.

Visual Complexity and Beauty Appreciation: Explaining the Divergence of Results:

Although a number of studies have verified Daniel Berlynes (1971) predicted maximum preference for intermediately complex stimuli, others have found that preference increased or decreased in relation to complexity. The objective of the present work was to assess whether differences in the kinds of stimuli used in prior studies or in the way complexity was defined could explain this divergence. In the first phase a set of 120 stimuli varying in complexity, abstraction, and artistry was assembled. In the second phase 94 participants were asked to rate the beauty of the stimuli. In the final phase the same participants rated 60 of the stimuli on seven complexity dimensions. We failed to detect any meaningful influence of complexity on beauty ratings for any of the kinds of stimuli. However, our results suggest that there are three different forms of complexity that contribute to peoples perception of visual complexity: one related with the amount and variety of elements, another related with the way those elements are organized, and asymmetry. We suggest that each of these types of complexity influences beauty ratings in different ways, and that the unresolved relation between complexity and beauty appreciation is mainly due to differences in the conception, manipulation, and measurement of visual complexity.

Neuroaesthetics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience.

The field of neuroaesthetics has gained in popularity in recent years but also attracted criticism from the perspectives both of the humanities and the sciences. In an effort to consolidate research in the field, we characterize neuroaesthetics as the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience, drawing on long traditions of research in empirical aesthetics on the one hand and cognitive neuroscience on the other. We clarify the aims and scope of the field, identifying relations among neuroscientific investigations of aesthetics, beauty, and art. The approach we advocate takes as its object of study a wide spectrum of aesthetic experiences, resulting from interactions of individuals, sensory stimuli, and context. Drawing on its parent fields, a cognitive neuroscience of aesthetics would investigate the complex cognitive processes and functional networks of brain regions involved in those experiences without placing a value on them. Thus, the cognitive neuroscientific approach may develop in a way that is mutually complementary to approaches in the humanities.The field of neuroaesthetics has gained in popularity in recent years but also attracted criticism from the perspectives both of the humanities and the sciences. In an effort to consolidate research in the field, we characterize neuroaesthetics as the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience, drawing on long traditions of research in empirical aesthetics on the one hand and cognitive neuroscience on the other. We clarify the aims and scope of the field, identifying relations among neuroscientific investigations of aesthetics, beauty, and art. The approach we advocate takes as its object of study a wide spectrum of aesthetic experiences, resulting from interactions of individuals, sensory stimuli, and context. Drawing on its parent fields, a cognitive neuroscience of aesthetics would investigate the complex cognitive processes and functional networks of brain regions involved in those experiences without placing a value on them. Thus, the cognitive neuroscientific approach may develop in a way that is mutually complementary to approaches in the humanities.

The experience of art: insights from neuroimaging.

The experience of art is a complex one. It emerges from the interaction of multiple cognitive and affective processes. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies are revealing the broadly distributed network of brain regions upon which it relies. This network can be divided into three functional components: (i) prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortical regions support evaluative judgment, attentional processing, and memory retrieval; (ii) the reward circuit, including cortical, subcortical regions, and some of its regulators, is involved in the generation of pleasurable feelings and emotions, and the valuation and anticipation of reward; and (iii) attentional modulation of activity in low-, mid-, and high-level cortical sensory regions enhances the perceptual processing of certain features, relations, locations, or objects. Understanding how these regions act in concert to produce unique and moving art experiences and determining the impact of personal and cultural meaning and context on this network the biological foundation of the experience of art--remain future challenges.