↓ Skip to main content

On the perceptual aesthetics of interactive objects

Overview of attention for article published in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the perceptual aesthetics of interactive objects
Published in
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.1177/1747021817749228
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Soranzo, Daniela Petrelli, Luigina Ciolfi, John Reidy

Abstract

This study examined the aesthetics of interactive objects (IOs), which are three-dimensional physical artefacts that exhibit autonomous behaviour when handled. The aim of the research was threefold: first, to investigate whether aesthetic preference for distinctive objects' structures emerges in compound stimulation; second, to explore whether there exists aesthetic preference for distinctive objects' behaviours; and, finally, to test whether there exists aesthetic preference for specific combinations of objects' structures and behaviours. The following variables were systematically manipulated: (a) IOs' contour (rounded vs angular), (b) IOs' size (small vs large), (c) IOs' surface texture (rough vs smooth), and (d) IOs' behaviour (lighting, sounding, vibrating, and quiescent). Results show that behaviour was the dominant factor: it influenced aesthetics more than any other characteristic; vibrating IOs were preferred over lighting and sounding IOs, supporting the importance of haptic processing in aesthetics. Results did not confirm the size and smoothness effects previously reported in vision and touch, respectively, which suggests that the aesthetic preference that emerges in isolated conditions may be different in compound stimulation. Results corroborate the smooth curvature effect. We suggest that behavior may be an aesthetic primitive.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 48%
Design 4 15%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#9,384,455
of 16,535,069 outputs
Outputs from Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
#554
of 1,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,791
of 283,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,535,069 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 1,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 283,361 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.