| Title |
Aesthetic appreciation of poetry correlates with ease of processing in event-related potentials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-015-0396-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Obermeier, Sonja A. Kotz, Sarah Jessen, Tim Raettig, Martin von Koppenfels, Winfried Menninghaus |
| Abstract |
Rhetorical theory suggests that rhythmic and metrical features of language substantially contribute to persuading, moving, and pleasing an audience. A potential explanation of these effects is offered by "cognitive fluency theory," which stipulates that recurring patterns (e.g., meter) enhance perceptual fluency and can lead to greater aesthetic appreciation. In this article, we explore these two assertions by investigating the effects of meter and rhyme in the reception of poetry by means of event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Participants listened to four versions of lyrical stanzas that varied in terms of meter and rhyme, and rated the stanzas for rhythmicity and aesthetic liking. The behavioral and ERP results were in accord with enhanced liking and rhythmicity ratings for metered and rhyming stanzas. The metered and rhyming stanzas elicited smaller N400/P600 ERP responses than their nonmetered, nonrhyming, or nonmetered and nonrhyming counterparts. In addition, the N400 and P600 effects for the lyrical stanzas correlated with aesthetic liking effects (metered-nonmetered), implying that modulation of the N400 and P600 has a direct bearing on the aesthetic appreciation of lyrical stanzas. We suggest that these effects are indicative of perceptual-fluency-enhanced aesthetic liking, as postulated by cognitive fluency theory. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Comoros | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 23% |
| Arts and Humanities | 10 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 9 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#8,759,452
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#394
of 1,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,518
of 399,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 399,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.