ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Effectiveness of labels in digital art experience: psychophysiological and behavioral evidence.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Nowadays museums make large use of digital materials (e.g., virtual tours) to attract visitors. Therefore, it is worthwhile investigating which variables affect the engagement with art outside the museum, and whether digital reproductions of artworks are as effective as museum originals in producing a satisfying aesthetic experience. Methods: Here we tested the effectiveness of introducing additional informative materials on the artistic enjoyment of contemporary paintings presented on a computer screen. Naïve observers were exposed to essential and descriptive labels before viewing artworks. We flanked traditional measurement methods - viewing times and questionnaires, with biometric parameters - pupil responses, eye movements, heart rate, and electrodermal activity. The results were then compared to our previous museum study that adopted the same experimental paradigm. Results: Our behavioral and psychophysiological data lead to a complex pattern of results. As found in the museum setting, providing detailed descriptions decreases complexity, evokes more positive sensations, and induces pupil dilation but does not enhance aesthetic appreciation. These results suggested that informative labels improve understanding and emotions but have a limited impact on the hedonic evaluation of artworks in both contexts. However, other results do not mirror those found in the museum; in the laboratory setting, participants spend a similar amount of time, have a comparable gaze behavior, and their electrodermal activity and heart rate do not change when viewing artworks with different types of labels. The main difference between the lab and museum settings is the shorter time spent viewing digital reproductions vs. real paintings, although subjective ratings (e.g., liking, interest) are comparable. Discussion: Overall, this study indicates that the environmental context does impact the aesthetic experience; although, some beneficial effects of introducing additional relevant content in labels accompanying artworks can also be acquainted through digital media outside of the museum.
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.