ArticlePloS one2025
Empirical aesthetics of bridges.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bridges are works of public infrastructure designed to perform a practical function. They are unique among works of engineering in that they also have a significant aesthetic dimension. At their best, they inspire awe and wonder. At their worst, they are eyesores. Little is known about what shapes the aesthetic appeal of bridges. Here we explore how visible features originating primarily from practical considerations relate to aesthetic judgements of bridges. Our dataset comprises of images of 318 bridges from around the world, rated by 254 participants for aesthetic pleasure, interest, complexity, and safety. Civil engineers annotated each bridge's type, depth, visible material, age, and aesthetic premium. Using Factorial Analysis of Mixed Data, we found two significant dimensions. The first dimension, "aesthetics", shows strong correlations among aesthetic, complexity, and interest ratings and is related to bridge type. The second dimension, "perceived safety", relates subjective ratings of safety to bridge age and material. Analyses of visual features, using the Mid-Level Vision Toolbox, shows that contour length and angularity are predictors of the "aesthetics" dimension. For example, cable-stayed bridges are represented by many short and angular contours and are generally rated as more complex, interesting, and aesthetically pleasing. Conversely, slab bridges are often represented by a few long contours and are rated as uninteresting and not aesthetically pleasing. Our study offers the first systematic attempt to collect and analyze subjective ratings of bridge aesthetics, paving the way for empirically supported decisions for the design of bridges and, potentially, other works of public infrastructure.
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.