ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
How undergraduate art students evaluate ChatGPT-generated art interpretations: perceived quality, bias-related judgment, and rating structure.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence increasingly produces explanatory texts for artworks, but how students evaluate these texts remains insufficiently understood. This study examined undergraduate art students' evaluations of ChatGPT-generated art interpretations when the AI source was explicitly disclosed. Methods: A total of 134 students evaluated Chinese-language interpretations of 10 artworks associated with United States art history. For each artwork, students reported their familiarity and rated school or period identification, formal analysis detail, content or theme interpretation, inferential rigor, cultural or stylistic conjecture, learning inspiration, and bias-related perceived quality. Results: Overall evaluations were moderately positive but varied across rating items. School or period identification and formal analysis detail received relatively high ratings, whereas the bias-related item, D7, received the lowest mean and greatest dispersion. Because all items were positively keyed, lower D7 scores indicated greater perceived bias-related problems. Internal consistency, correlation, and principal component analyses showed substantial overlap among D1-D6, indicating a broad textual-quality impression, whereas D7 was less strongly integrated with this response pattern. Artwork familiarity, prior AI-based artwork-analysis experience, and art history or visual culture coursework were associated with more favorable ratings. General AI-use frequency showed no significant adjusted association. Discussion: Under disclosed-source conditions, the findings show how students organize perceived-quality judgments of AI-generated art interpretations. Such interpretations may support observation, discussion, and evidence-verification activities in art education.
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.