Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28588537›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2017

Using CNN Features to Better Understand What Makes Visual Artworks Special.

Anselm Brachmann, Erhardt Barth, Christoph Redies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The perceptual primacy of feeling: Affectless visual machines explain a majority of variance in human visually evoked affect.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Computational and Experimental Approaches to Visual Aesthetics.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anselm BrachmannExperimental Aesthetics Group, Institute of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Jena University Hospital, University of JenaJena, Germany.
Erhardt BarthInstitute of Neuro- and Bioinformatics, University of LübeckLübeck, Germany.
Christoph RediesExperimental Aesthetics Group, Institute of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Jena University Hospital, University of JenaJena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the goal of computational aesthetics is to understand what is special about visual artworks. By analyzing image statistics, contemporary methods in computer vision enable researchers to identify properties that distinguish artworks from other (non-art) types of images. Such knowledge will eventually allow inferences with regard to the possible neural mechanisms that underlie aesthetic perception in the human visual system. In the present study, we define measures that capture variances of features of a well-established Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), which was trained on millions of images to recognize objects. Using an image dataset that represents traditional Western, Islamic and Chinese art, as well as various types of non-art images, we show that we need only two variance measures to distinguish between the artworks and non-art images with a high classification accuracy of 93.0%. Results for the first variance measure imply that, in the artworks, the subregions of an image tend to be filled with pictorial elements, to which many diverse CNN features respond (

Indexed as

aesthetic perceptionCNN feature responsesexperimental aestheticsrichnessself-similaritystatistical image propertiesvisual art

Identifiers

PMID28588537
PMCPMC5440784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.