Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33974037›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

A deep-learning framework for human perception of abstract art composition.

Pierre Lelièvre, Peter Neri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Pierre LelièvreLaboratoire des systèmes perceptifs, Département d'études cognitives Science Arts Création Recherche (EA 7410), Paris, France.
Peter NeriÉcole normale supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artistic composition (the structural organization of pictorial elements) is often characterized by some basic rules and heuristics, but art history does not offer quantitative tools for segmenting individual elements, measuring their interactions and related operations. To discover whether a metric description of this kind is even possible, we exploit a deep-learning algorithm that attempts to capture the perceptual mechanism underlying composition in humans. We rely on a robust behavioral marker with known relevance to higher-level vision: orientation judgements, that is, telling whether a painting is hung "right-side up." Humans can perform this task, even for abstract paintings. To account for this finding, existing models rely on "meaningful" content or specific image statistics, often in accordance with explicit rules from art theory. Our approach does not commit to any such assumptions/schemes, yet it outperforms previous models and for a larger database, encompassing a wide range of painting styles. Moreover, our model correctly reproduces human performance across several measurements from a new web-based experiment designed to test whole paintings, as well as painting fragments matched to the receptive-field size of different depths in the model. By exploiting this approach, we show that our deep learning model captures relevant characteristics of human orientation perception across styles and granularities. Interestingly, the more abstract the painting, the more our model relies on extended spatial integration of cues, a property supported by deeper layers.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPaintingsCuesHumansJudgmentPerception

Identifiers

PMID33974037
PMCPMC8114002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.