ArticleScientific reports2025
Combined fMRI and eye-tracking evidence on the neural processing of visual ambiguity in photographic aesthetics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Neural substrates of ambiguity and beauty in haiku poetry: an fMRI study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Beauty in the shadow of neurodegenerative disease: a narrative review on aesthetic experience, neural mechanisms, and therapeutic frontiers.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Attentional responses to the color exposure sequence of landscape paintings: evidence from fNIRS and eye-tracking.Frontiers in human 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While visual ambiguity is known to play a central role in modern art, the neural correlates of its processing remain substantially unexplored in the case of aesthetic stimuli. To fill this gap, we combined eye-tracking and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate both visual exploration, and the associated brain activity and connectivity, when observing (WO) or evaluating (WE) either ambiguous (AMB+) or non-ambiguous (AMB-) artistic photographic stimuli. These manipulations highlighted more fixations (suggestive of higher loading on exploratory processes) when evaluating compared with observing, and stronger right fronto-parietal and occipito-temporal activity (possibly supporting the resolution of visual ambiguity through attentional reorienting to global vs. local aspects) when processing ambiguous compared with non-ambiguous stimuli. Task-by-stimulus type interaction analyses showed that evaluating ambiguous stimuli was specifically associated with stronger fixation-related activity in the left medial prefrontal cortex, as well as decreased connectivity from this region to its right-hemispheric homologue, possibly supporting in-depth visuospatial analyses of complex visual images. These findings pave the way for future studies addressing the role of visual ambiguity in aesthetic appreciation, as well as the factors that might ease vs. hamper its processing and resolution, and their neural correlates.
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.