Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40709233›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Surface neatness as an index of aesthetic value of everyday objects.

Tatiana Ledneva, Andriy Myachykov, Yury Shtyrov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tatiana LednevaInstitute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Andriy MyachykovInstitute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Yury ShtyrovInstitute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Surface neatness is a fundamental yet underexplored determinant of the aesthetic evaluation of everyday objects. While prior research has typically examined individual surface features - such as gloss, shine, dirt, or scratches - in isolation, the holistic impact of surface neatness has received little systematic attention. Methods: In this study, participants viewed images of objects from five categories (household items, tools, personal use items, stationery, and kitchen utensils), each presented in three surface conditions: untidy (displaying mechanical and hygienic defects), neutral (without visible defects), and neat (exhibiting gloss and cleanliness). For each object, participants provided a preference rating reflecting their aesthetic evaluation. Results: Analysis revealed a robust effect of surface neatness on aesthetic preference: objects in the untidy condition consistently received the lowest ratings, while neat surfaces were rated most attractive. The differences between all surface conditions were statistically significant. Discussion: These results demonstrate that surface neatness is a dynamic and salient factor shaping the perceived value and desirability of everyday objects. The findings underscore the need for more rigorous operationalization of surface properties in empirical research on human-object interaction and suggest practical applications for product design, consumer psychology, and sustainable practices, where surface conditions directly influence aesthetic experience and object appeal.

Indexed as

aestheticsaffordanceshuman-object interactionneatnesssurface perceptionvisual attractiveness

Identifiers

PMID40709233
PMCPMC12288685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.