ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Human creativity versus artificial intelligence: source attribution, observer attitudes, and eye movements while viewing visual art.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Effects of Exhibit Text Presentation Types on Visual Attention Patterns and Cognitive Load in Digital Museums: An Eye-Tracking Study.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
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: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the capability to create visual images with minimal human input, a technology that is being applied to many areas of daily life. However, the products of AI are consistently judged to be worse than human-created art, even when comparable in quality. The purpose of this study is to determine whether explicit cognitive bias against AI is related to implicit perceptual mechanisms active while viewing art. Methods: Participants' eye movements were recorded while viewing religious art, a notably human domain meant to maximize potential bias against AI. Participants ( Results: Participants' gaze patterns (fixation counts, fixation durations, fixation dispersion, saccade amplitude, blink rate, saccade peak velocity, and pupil size) did not differ based on who they believed created the pieces, but their subjective opinions of the pieces were significantly more positive when they believed pieces were created by humans as opposed to AI. Discussion: This study did not obtain any evidence that a person's explicit "valuation" of artworks modulates the pace or spatial extent of visual exploration nor the cognitive effort expended to develop an understanding of them.
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.