ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Is there any (emotional) difference between seeing art in the museum vs. in the lab? A comparative study of phenomenal art experiences of original artworks and digital reproductions.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the current post-digital age, technology is omnipresent in our everyday lives and digital encounters with (even originally analog) art are increasingly pervasive. Museums, artists, and art professionals continue to utilize digital technologies in their practices, and both access to and awareness of digital platforms continue to expand. In spite of this, little is known about how experiences with digital reproductions on a computer actually compare to original artworks in a museum, especially regarding viewers' global, felt-experiences. Previous investigations of digital art experiences report rather small and inconsistent differences between museum and laboratory conditions. These studies have tended to focus on hedonic responses and aesthetic judgements, and of these, few include comparative museum conditions with high-quality, genuine works of art. Methods: In the current study, we present a direct comparison of first-hand experiences of artworks in the gallery and in-lab experiences of their digital surrogates. We used a previous large-scale collection of museum experiences as a basis for this comparison, selecting eight artworks from the original study to digitize and present to new participants in a traditional laboratory setting. Initial results replicate previous findings, where aesthetic judgement ratings were found to be significantly, but only marginally, higher in the museum condition. In addition to collecting standard judgement ratings, we also employed a new self-report measure for capturing phenomenal experiences with visual art encounters that uses confirmatory latent profile analysis to identify and assign individual reports to one of five established experience types: Harmonious, Novel, Transformative, Disengaged, and Negative. Results: We found a small but significant difference in the frequency of experience types between the museum and digital cohorts, with the latter producing more Disengaged and Novel experiences, and lower rates of Harmonious and Negative experiences. A significant interaction between setting and experience type was also found for Negative and Transformative types. Discussion: Our study shows that artworks that cluster around negative affect experience types are better supported within the scaffolding of a museum setting.
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.