ArticleScientific reports2024
The role of audiovisual congruence in aesthetic appreciation of contemporary music and visual art.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Augmenting art crossmodally: possibilities and pitfalls.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- An fMRI study of crossmodal emotional congruency and the role of semantic content in the aesthetic appreciation of naturalistic art.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Does congruence between auditory and visual modalities affect aesthetic experience? While cross-modal correspondences between vision and hearing are well-documented, previous studies show conflicting results regarding whether audiovisual correspondence affects subjective aesthetic experience. Here, in collaboration with the Kentler International Drawing Space (NYC, USA), we depart from previous research by using music specifically composed to pair with visual art in the professionally-curated Music as Image and Metaphor exhibition. Our pre-registered online experiment consisted of 4 conditions: Audio, Visual, Audio-Visual-Intended (artist-intended pairing of art/music), and Audio-Visual-Random (random shuffling). Participants (N = 201) were presented with 16 pieces and could click to proceed to the next piece whenever they liked. We used time spent as an implicit index of aesthetic interest. Additionally, after each piece, participants were asked about their subjective experience (e.g., feeling moved). We found that participants spent significantly more time with Audio, followed by Audiovisual, followed by Visual pieces; however, they felt most moved in the Audiovisual (bi-modal) conditions. Ratings of audiovisual correspondence were significantly higher for the Audiovisual-Intended compared to Audiovisual-Random condition; interestingly, though, there were no significant differences between intended and random conditions on any other subjective rating scale, or for time spent. Collectively, these results call into question the relationship between cross-modal correspondence and aesthetic appreciation. Additionally, the results complicate the use of time spent as an implicit measure of aesthetic experience.
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.