Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41733707›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2026

Aesthetic judgment of apparent motion: effects of movement smoothness, synchrony, and shape.

Ernesto Monroy, Guido Orgs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Ernesto MonroyDepartment of Psychology, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. monroye@uninorte.edu.co.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1810-7482
Guido OrgsInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-3979

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, Psychology of Aesthetics is starting to address the gap in knowledge on synchronous movement observation. This article presents two experiments that assess aesthetic judgments of animations. In Experiment 1, participants watched 32 video clips of human body animations depicting smooth synchrony, smooth asynchrony, abrupt synchrony, and abrupt asynchrony. Participants rated the videos using semantic differential scales of liking, arousal, variety, control, diversity, familiarity, obviousness, and happiness. In Experiment 2, participants watched 32 video clips of human and abstract animations depicting postural fluency, abstract fluency, postural disfluency, and abstract disfluency. Participants rated the videos using the same semantic differential scales of Experiment 1. In Experiment 1, our analysis revealed that synchrony enhanced the preference ratings for abrupt movements, while asynchrony diminished the preference ratings for smooth movements. In Experiment 2, participants’ responses showed that human body animations tend to be more calming when fluent and more exciting when disfluent, in comparison to abstract animations. In both experiments, participants liked movement smoothness and synchrony, and disliked abruptness and asynchrony. Findings from the two experiments highlight the aesthetic appeal of synchronous movement and the aesthetic strength of the human body in motion.

Indexed as

EstheticsJudgmentMotion PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMovementYoung AdultBody perceptionEmpirical aestheticsMethod of choiceSynchrony

Identifiers

PMID41733707
PMCPMC12932363

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.