Capturing Aesthetic Experiences With Installation Art: An Empirical Assessment of Emotion, Evaluations, and Mobile Eye Tracking in Olafur Eliasson’s “Baroque, Baroque!”

Installation art is one of the most important and provocative developments in the visual arts during the last half century and has become a key focus of artists and of contemporary museums. It is also seen as particularly challenging or even disliked by many viewers, and—due to its unique in situ, immersive setting—is equally regarded as difficult or even beyond the grasp of present methods in empirical aesthetic psychology. In this paper, we introduce an exploratory study with installation art, utilizing a collection of techniques to capture the eclectic, the embodied, and often the emotionally-charged viewing experience. We present results from an investigation of two pieces, both part of Olafur Eliasson’s exhibition “Baroque, Baroque” held at the Belvedere museum in Vienna. These were assessed by pre- and post-viewing questionnaires focusing on emotion, meaning-making, and appraisals, in tandem with mobile eye tracking to consider viewers’ attention to both installed artworks and/or to the museum environment. The data showed differences in participants’ emotional states, appraisals, and visual exploration, which together paint a picture of the aesthetic reactions to the works. These differences also showed how viewers’ appraisal strategies, meaning making, and physical actions facilitated relatively more or less deep engagement with, and enjoyment of, the art. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for museum studies, art education, and theory in empirical aesthetics

Bayesian and frequentist analysis of an Austrian genome-wide association study of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas

Most genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were analyzed using single marker tests in combination with stringent correction procedures for multiple testing. Thus, a substantial proportion of associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) remained undetected and may account for missing heritability in complex traits. Model selection procedures present a powerful alternative to identify associated SNPs in high-dimensional settings. In this GWAS including 1060 colorectal cancer cases, 689 cases of advanced colorectal adenomas and 4367 controls we pursued a dual approach to investigate genome-wide associations with disease risk applying both, single marker analysis and model selection based on the modified Bayesian information criterion, mBIC2, implemented in the software package MOSGWA. For different case-control comparisons, we report models including between 1-14 candidate SNPs. A genome-wide significant association of rs17659990 (P=5.43x10(-9), DOCK3, chromosome 3p21.2) with colorectal cancer risk was observed. Furthermore, 56 SNPs known to influence susceptibility to colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma were tested in a hypothesis-driven approach and several of them were found to be relevant in our Austrian cohort. After correction for multiple testing (alpha=8.9x10(-4)), the most significant associations were observed for SNPs rs10505477 (P=6.08x10(-4)) and rs6983267 (P=7.35x10(-4)) of CASC8, rs3802842 (P=8.98x10(-5), COLCA1,2), and rs12953717 (P=4.64x10(-4), SMAD7). All previously unreported SNPs demand replication in additional samples. Reanalysis of existing GWAS datasets using model selection as tool to detect SNPs associated with a complex trait may present a promising resource to identify further genetic risk variants not only for colorectal cancer

Birds of a Feather... Generalization of Facial Structures Following Massive Familiarization

Three experiments examined the effects of symmetry and complexity, as facial structures, on the aesthetic judgments of faces, and how these effects are modulated by moderate or massive familiarization. Results showed that symmetrical faces were judged as more attractive than nonsymmetrical faces, and simple faces were judged as more attractive than complex faces-with complexity defined as the number of facial elements. Complexity in faces seemed to have overridden the usually positive effects of facial symmetry. Moreover, while moderate familiarization did not modulate the effects, massive familiarization to a specific face type resulted in structural generalization effects: participants provided higher aesthetic judgments to faces that were new, but similarly structured to those which they were familiarized. This latter result contrasts previous studies that have found structural contrast effects following familiarization to meaningless, abstract stimuli. Taken together, these results reflect the greater biological and social significance of faces as compared to other objects in the world. They also show that people are drawn to those with familiar characteristics

Faces Versus Patterns: Exploring Aesthetic Reactions Using Facial EMG

We used facial EMG to examine reactions to the attractiveness of natural (faces) and artificial (abstract patterns) stimuli under long and short presentation durations. Attractive stimuli produced strong activations of the M. zygomaticus major muscle, indicating positive affective reactions; and unattractive stimuli produced strong activations of the M. corrugator supercili muscle, indicating negative affective reactions. Fluency effects, indicated by stronger activations of the M. zygomaticus major under the longer presentation duration were, however, only found for the abstract patterns. Moreover, the abstract patterns also were associated with more consistent activations over time than the faces, suggesting differences in the processes underlying the evaluation of faces and patterns. We discuss these results in terms of differences in appraisal processes between the two classes of stimuli-the greater biological, social, and sociosexual significance of faces trigger more complex appraisals than the abstract patterns

Everything’s Relative? Relative Differences in Processing Fluency and the Effects on Liking

<div><p>Explanations of aesthetic pleasure based on processing fluency have shown that ease-of-processing fosters liking. What is less clear, however, is how processing fluency arises. Does it arise from a relative comparison among the stimuli presented in the experiment? Or does it arise from a comparison to an internal reference or standard? To address these questions, we conducted two experiments in which two ease-of-processing manipulations were applied: either (1) within-participants, where relative comparisons among stimuli varying in processing ease were possible, or (2) between-participants, where no relative comparisons were possible. In total, 97 participants viewed simple line drawings with high or low visual clarity, presented at four different presentation durations, and rated for felt fluency, liking, and certainty. Our results show that the manipulation of visual clarity led to differences in felt fluency and certainty regardless of being manipulated within- or between-participants. However, liking ratings were only affected when ease-of-processing was manipulated within-participants. Thus, feelings of fluency do not depend on the nature of the reference. On the other hand, participants liked fluent stimuli more only when there were other stimuli varying in ease-of-processing. Thus, relative differences in fluency seem to be crucial for liking judgments.</p></div

Mean ratings of felt fluency, liking, and certainty in Experiment 1.

<p>Means are separated by ease-of-processing (presentation duration of 100, 200, 300, or 400 ms) and by stimulus condition (noise or no-noise). The error bars represent ± one standard error of the mean.</p

Trial sequence with respective presentation durations to the left.

<p>In Experiment 1, half of the participants were presented with targets with Gaussian noise, the other half of the participants were presented with targets without Gaussian noise. In Experiment 2, participants were presented with both types of targets (with and without Gaussian noise).</p

Mean ratings of felt fluency, liking, and certainty in Experiment 2.

<p>Means are separated by ease-of-processing (presentation duration of 100, 200, 300, or 400 ms) and by stimulus condition (noise or no-noise). The error bars represent ± one standard error of the mean.</p