ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
An embodiment of the cinematographer: emotional and perceptual responses to different camera movement techniques.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking Naturalistic Movie Neuroimaging Through Film Form.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Faces in shadows: silhouette light, underlight and toplight elicit increased early posterior negativity.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Simulating drone and bodily movements: a behavioral study.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Kinaesthetic empathy through the lens of the cinematographer: physiological and phenomenological alignments in the act of creation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Reexamining the Kuleshov effect: Behavioral and neural evidence from authentic film experiments.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate the relationship between camera movement techniques and cognitive responses in audiences, reporting on an experiment exploring the effects of different camera movement methods on viewers' degree of immersion and emotional response. This follows directly from preceding experimental literature and is further motivated by accounts and experiences of practicing cinematographers (authors included), which indicates a correspondence between the two. We designed three different cinematic scenes with indifferent moods, and shot each one time with Steadicam, dolly, handheld, and static camera, resulting in 12 different clips. A total of 44 non-professional participants watched the clips and rated their reactions in terms of arousal and degree of involvement. Experimental results are mixed: movement affects the sense of involvement but not necessarily emotional response. We present and discuss some further explorative results and possible future directions to improve the design. We argue in this contribution that there is value in experimental approaches to cinematography, enabling the systematic study of creative intuitions and audience responses in controlled settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.