ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2026
Unveiling the factors of aesthetic preferences with explainable AI.
Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How AI can advance psychological science.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Predicting visual aesthetic preferences in Tehran city universities campuses using machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The allure of aesthetic appeal in images captivates our senses, yet the underlying intricacies of aesthetic preferences remain elusive. In this study, we pioneer a novel perspective by utilizing several different machine learning (ML) models that focus on aesthetic attributes known to influence preferences. Our models process these attributes as inputs to predict the aesthetic scores of images. Moreover, to delve deeper and obtain interpretable explanations regarding the factors driving aesthetic preferences, we utilize the popular Explainable AI (XAI) technique known as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Our methodology compares the performance of various ML models, including Random Forest, XGBoost, Support Vector Regression, and Multilayer Perceptron, in accurately predicting aesthetic scores, and consistently observing results in conjunction with SHAP. We conduct experiments on three image aesthetic benchmarks, namely Aesthetics with Attributes Database (AADB), Explainable Visual Aesthetics (EVA), and Personalized image Aesthetics database with Rich Attributes (PARA), providing insights into the roles of attributes and their interactions. Finally, our study presents ML models for aesthetics research, alongside the introduction of XAI. Our aim is to shed light on the complex nature of aesthetic preferences in images through ML and to provide a deeper understanding of the attributes that influence aesthetic judgements.
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.