The sound of beauty: How complexity determines aesthetic preference
Acta Psychologica, ISSN: 0001-6918, Vol: 192, Page: 146-152
2019
- 25Citations
- 57Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations25
- Citation Indexes25
- 25
- CrossRef4
- Captures57
- Readers57
- 57
Article Description
Stimulus complexity is an important determinant of aesthetic preference. An influential idea is that increases in stimulus complexity lead to increased preference up to an optimal point after which preference decreases (inverted-U pattern). However, whereas some studies indeed observed this pattern, most studies instead showed an increased preference for more complexity. One complicating issue is that it remains unclear how to define complexity. To address this, we approached complexity and its relation to aesthetic preference from a predictive coding perspective. Here, low- and high-complexity stimuli would correspond to low and high levels of prediction errors, respectively. We expected participants to prefer stimuli which are neither too easy to predict (low prediction error), nor too difficult (high prediction error). To test this, we presented two sequences of tones on each trial that varied in predictability from highly regular (low prediction error) to completely random (high prediction error), and participants had to indicate which of the two sequences they preferred in a two-interval forced-choice task. The complexity of each tone sequence (amount of prediction error) was estimated using entropy. Results showed that participants tended to choose stimuli with intermediate complexity over those of high or low complexity. This confirms the century-old idea that stimulus complexity has an inverted-U relationship to aesthetic preference.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169181830177X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.011; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85057373747&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30504052; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000169181830177X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.011
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know