ArticleScientific reports2026
The element of surprise distinguishes beauty from pleasure and interest in visuo-tactile perception of art.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated how tactile exploration of visually similar but materially different artwork pairs, i.e., congruent (matching tactile properties) or incongruent (mismatching tactile properties), influences aesthetic evaluation, embodied experience, and neural processing. We examined how prediction errors during incongruent trials relate to beauty, pleasure, and interest ratings, as well as mismatch negativity (MMN), associated with sensory surprise. Sixty-six participants explored eight artwork pairs, while EEG was recorded and were asked to rate artworks on various dimensions. Results showed that congruent artworks were rated significantly higher on beauty, pleasure, and interest, supporting the idea that sensory harmony enhances the aesthetic experience. However, the MMN analysis revealed a more complex interplay. Stronger MMN amplitudes were associated with higher beauty ratings, suggesting perceptual surprise may enhance aesthetic appreciation under certain conditions. Pleasure moderated this relationship, with stronger MMN-beauty associations coinciding with lower pleasure ratings, pointing towards the role of metacognitive awareness in the experience of beauty. Measures of intimacy and embodiment did not differ significantly between congruent and incongruent trials. Our results demonstrate that MMN can serve as a neural marker of prediction error in tactile art (i.e., art that is intended to be touched) perception, and that beauty may reflect metacognitive appraisal processes as incongruence in visuo-tactile interactions is resolved.
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.