| Title |
Two-Stage Processing of Aesthetic Information in the Human Brain Revealed by Neural Adaptation Paradigm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brain Topography, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10548-018-0654-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miho Iwasaki, Yasuki Noguchi, Ryusuke Kakigi |
| Abstract |
Some researchers in aesthetics assume visual features related to aesthetic perception (e.g. golden ratio and symmetry) commonly embedded in masterpieces. If this is true, an intriguing hypothesis is that the human brain has neural circuitry specialized for the processing of visual beauty. We presently tested this hypothesis by combining a neuroimaging technique with the repetition suppression (RS) paradigm. Subjects (non-experts in art) viewed two images of sculptures sequentially presented. Some sculptures obeyed the golden ratio (canonical images), while the golden proportion were impaired in other sculptures (deformed images). We found that the occipito-temporal cortex in the right hemisphere showed the RS when a canonical sculpture (e.g. Venus de Milo) was repeatedly presented, but not when its deformed version was repeated. Furthermore, the right parietal cortex showed the RS to the canonical proportion even when two sculptures had different identities (e.g. Venus de Milo as the first stimulus and David di Michelangelo as the second), indicating that this region encodes the golden ratio as an abstract rule shared by different sculptures. Those results suggest two separate stages of neural processing for aesthetic information (one in the occipito-temporal and another in the parietal regions) that are hierarchically arranged in the human brain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 44% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,264,943
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Brain Topography
#223
of 486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,500
of 329,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Topography
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.