ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025
Neural correlates of evaluative bias against artificial intelligence-labeled versus human-labeled artworks.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled machines to produce creative outputs, such as artworks, that rival human creations. However, despite these technological achievements, public acceptance and valuation of AI-generated creative products remain uncertain. This study investigates the bias against AI-generated artworks by examining both behavioral and neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Across two pre-registered studies (total N = 125), participants evaluated paintings labeled as either human-created or AI-generated, with the artworks being objectively identical. Behavioral results revealed a consistent bias against AI-labeled paintings, with participants rating them lower in different evaluative dimensions. Neural data from EEG indicated relatively higher P300 amplitudes and alpha power during the evaluation of human-labeled paintings, suggesting potentially greater attentional allocation and cognitive engagement. The fNIRS results further demonstrated increased activity in the right angular gyrus and stronger functional connectivity between the inferior frontal gyrus and angular gyrus for human-labeled artworks, which may indicate deeper semantic and emotional processing. These findings highlight that biases against AI-generated artworks are not only evident in explicit evaluations but also manifest in underlying neural processes, reflecting a persistent preference for human creativity. The study underscores the importance of addressing public biases to foster acceptance and trust in AI technologies.
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.