Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42233072›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

When the image loses its shape: a comparative study of college students' understanding pathways of abstract and figurative art.

Shaowen Wang, Wenbin Li, Le Yin, Mengling Lyu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

4 authors.

Shaowen WangSichuan University Jinjiang College, Meishan, China.
Wenbin LiSichuan University Jinjiang College, Meishan, China.
Le YinSichuan University Jinjiang College, Meishan, China.
Mengling LyuSichuan University Jinjiang College, Meishan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines path differences in abstract and figurative art comprehension between art and non-art majors among college students. Employing a phased mixed-methods approach, the qualitative phase utilized semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to develop a "perception-emotion-context-reasoning/narrative-interpretation" comprehension model, which informed the creation of a quantitative scale. The quantitative phase employed this model as a framework for reliability and validity testing, alongside multi-group path analysis. It compared and refined the model across four scenarios ("abstract/concrete × art/non-art"). Results indicate that contextual factors play a pivotal "hub-and-spoke" role in artistic comprehension. Artistic groups leverage context to engage in abstract reasoning and narrative construction, producing symbolic and academic expressions. Non-artistic groups, however, are often emotion-driven or rely on subjective speculation, leading to everyday associations or comprehension barriers. Understanding abstract works relies on perception and emotion, which, through context, ascend to the symbolic level. Concrete works, supported by context, activate narrative and linguistic pathways. The study provides mutual validation across qualitative and quantitative dimensions, proposing pedagogical and exhibition insights such as tiered contextual cues, narrative scaffolding, and task-oriented observation. These approaches facilitate the transition from experiential to professional understanding, enriching cognitive processing theories of art comprehension and offering an actionable framework for aesthetic education and museum practice.

Indexed as

abstract artcontextual factorsfigurative artmixed-methodspathways of understanding

Identifiers

PMID42233072
PMCPMC13225768

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.