↓ Skip to main content

On the Role of Mentalizing Processes in Aesthetic Appreciation: An ERP Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
67 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 Role of Mentalizing Processes in Aesthetic Appreciation: An ERP Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00600
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Beudt, Thomas Jacobsen

Abstract

We used event-related brain potentials to explore the impact of mental perspective taking on processes of aesthetic appreciation of visual art. Participants (non-experts) were first presented with information about the life and attitudes of a fictitious artist. Subsequently, they were cued trial-wise to make an aesthetic judgment regarding an image depicting a piece of abstract art either from their own perspective or from the imagined perspective of the fictitious artist [i.e., theory of mind (ToM) condition]. Positive self-referential judgments were made more quickly and negative self-referential judgments were made more slowly than the corresponding judgments from the imagined perspective. Event-related potential analyses revealed significant differences between the two tasks both within the preparation period (i.e., during the cue-stimulus interval) and within the stimulus presentation period. For the ToM condition we observed a relative centro-parietal negativity during the preparation period (700-330 ms preceding picture onset) and a relative centro-parietal positivity during the stimulus presentation period (700-1100 ms after stimulus onset). These findings suggest that different subprocesses are involved in aesthetic appreciation and judgment of visual abstract art from one's own vs. from another person's perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 4%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 42%
Arts and Humanities 7 10%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 14 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,259,093
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,137
of 7,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,015
of 281,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#21
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 281,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.