Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37589891›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023

Aesthetic preferences for prototypical movements in human actions.

Yi-Chia Chen, Frank Pollick, Hongjing Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Yi-Chia ChenDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. yichiachen@g.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8321-8595
Frank PollickSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7212-4622
Hongjing LuDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0660-1176

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A commonplace sight is seeing other people walk. Our visual system specializes in processing such actions. Notably, we are not only quick to recognize actions, but also quick to judge how elegantly (or not) people walk. What movements appear appealing, and why do we have such aesthetic experiences? Do aesthetic preferences for body movements arise simply from perceiving others' positive emotions? To answer these questions, we showed observers different point-light walkers who expressed neutral, happy, angry, or sad emotions through their movements and measured the observers' impressions of aesthetic appeal, emotion positivity, and naturalness of these movements. Three experiments were conducted. People showed consensus in aesthetic impressions even after controlling for emotion positivity, finding prototypical walks more aesthetically pleasing than atypical walks. This aesthetic prototype effect could be accounted for by a computational model in which walking actions are treated as a single category (as opposed to multiple emotion categories). The aesthetic impressions were affected both directly by the objective prototypicality of the movements, and indirectly through the mediation of perceived naturalness. These findings extend the boundary of category learning, and hint at possible functions for action aesthetics.

Indexed as

AngerEmotionsConsensusEstheticsHappinessHumansAestheticsBiological motionCategoryEmotionPrototype

Identifiers

PMID37589891
PMCPMC10435434

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.