↓ Skip to main content

How Do We See Art: An Eye-Tracker Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
How Do We See Art: An Eye-Tracker Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, Carlos Pedreira

Abstract

We describe the pattern of fixations of subjects looking at figurative and abstract paintings from different artists (Molina, Mondrian, Rembrandt, della Francesca) and at modified versions in which different aspects of these art pieces were altered with simple digital manipulations. We show that the fixations of the subjects followed some general common principles (e.g., being attracted to saliency regions) but with a large variability for the figurative paintings, according to the subject's personal appreciation and knowledge. In particular, we found different gazing patterns depending on whether the subject saw the original or the modified version of the painting first. We conclude that the study of gazing patterns obtained by using the eye-tracker technology gives a useful approach to quantify how subjects observe art.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 160 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 21%
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Professor 16 9%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 19 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 11%
Neuroscience 15 9%
Arts and Humanities 11 6%
Engineering 10 6%
Other 47 28%
Unknown 23 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 08 August 2021.
All research outputs
#833,071
of 24,261,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#384
of 7,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,815
of 188,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#8
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,261,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 188,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.