Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41411240›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Empirical aesthetics of bridges.

Mei Yang, Claudia Damiano, Paul Gauvreau, Dirk B Walther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Mei YangDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9714-2030
Claudia DamianoDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0574-3068
Paul GauvreauDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2868-9041
Dirk B WaltherDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8585-9858

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41411240
PMCPMC12714226

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.